Background: Transgender individuals experience unique vulnerabilities to intimate partner violence (IPV) and may experience a disproportionate IPV burden compared with cisgender (nontransgender) individuals. Objectives: To systematically review the quantitative literature on prevalence and correlates of IPV in transgender populations. Search Methods: Authors searched research databases (PubMed, CINAHL), gray literature (Google), journal tables of contents, and conference abstracts, and consulted experts in the field. Authors were contacted with data requests in cases in which transgender participants were enrolled in a study, but no disaggregated statistics were provided for this population. Selection Criteria: We included all quantitative literature published before July 2019 on prevalence and correlates of IPV victimization, perpetration, or service utilization in transgender populations. There were no restrictions by sample size, year, or location. Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers conducted screening. One reviewer conducted extraction by using a structured database, and a second reviewer checked for mistakes or omissions. We used random-effects meta-analyses to calculate relative risks (RRs) comparing the prevalence of IPV in transgender individuals and cisgender individuals in studies in which both transgender and cisgender individuals were enrolled. We also used meta-analysis to compare IPV prevalence in assigned-female-sex-at-birth and assigned-male-sex-at-birth transgender individuals and to compare physical IPV prevalence between nonbinary and binary transgender individuals in studies that enrolled both groups. Main Results: We identified 85 articles from 74 unique data sets (ntotal = 49 966 transgender participants). Across studies reporting it, the median lifetime prevalence of physical IPV was 37.5%, lifetime sexual IPV was 25.0%, past-year physical IPV was 16.7%, and past-year sexual IPV was 10.8% among transgender individuals. Compared with cisgender individuals, transgender individuals were 1.7 times more likely to experience any IPV (RR = 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.36, 2.03), 2.2 times more likely to experience physical IPV (RR = 2.19; 95% CI = 1.66, 2.88), and 2.5 times more likely to experience sexual IPV (RR = 2.46; 95% CI = 1.64, 3.69). Disparities persisted when comparing to cisgender women specifically. There was no significant difference in any IPV, physical IPV, or sexual IPV prevalence between assigned-female-sex-at-birth and assigned-male-sex-at-birth individuals, nor in physical IPV prevalence between binary- and nonbinary-identified transgender individuals. IPV victimization was associated with sexual risk, substance use, and mental health burden in transgender populations. Authors’ Conclusions: Transgender individuals experience a dramatically higher prevalence of IPV victimization compared with cisgender individuals, regardless of sex assigned at birth. IPV prevalence estimates are comparably high for assigned-male-sex-at-birth and assigned-female-sex-at-birth transgender individuals, and for binary and nonbinary transgender individuals, though more research is needed. Public Health Implications: Evidence-based interventions are urgently needed to prevent and address IPV in this high-risk population with unique needs. Lack of legal protections against discrimination in employment, housing, and social services likely foster vulnerability to IPV. Transgender individuals should be explicitly included in US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations promoting IPV screening in primary care settings. Interventions at the policy level as well as the interpersonal and individual level are urgently needed to address epidemic levels of IPV in this marginalized, high-risk population. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print July 16, 2020: e1–e14. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774)

Online focus group discussions provide an anonymous environment to assess sensitive, health-related experiences that may be difficult to discuss utilizing traditional face-to-face modalities, particularly for marginalized populations such as female-to-male trans masculine (TM) transgender individuals. This article reviews the history, advantages, and disadvantages of online focus groups, with an emphasis for research about sensitive issues with stigmatized, rare, and/or geographically dispersed patient populations. The article then evaluates the success of online focus group discussions as a case study using data from four asynchronous online focus groups conducted between September 2015 and February 2016 that explored topics related to sexual health care access with U.S. TM adults (N = 29). The rationale for selecting an asynchronous online methodology is described along with the unique methodological considerations that emerged in developing the study protocol. We conclude by sharing lessons learned, including innovations for maximizing participant engagement and comfort to elicit rich qualitative data.

BackgroundHIV incidence is growing most rapidly in the United States among young men who have sex with men (YMSM). Overwhelming evidence demonstrates that routine testing and expanded use of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) would dramatically reduce the population burden of HIV; however, uptake of both interventions is suboptimal among young adults. The use of mobile phone apps by YMSM is ubiquitous and may offer unique opportunities for public health interventions. MyChoices is a theory-driven app to increase HIV testing and PrEP uptake. It was developed by an interdisciplinary team based on feedback from a diverse sample of YMSM.ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to describe the protocol for the refinement, beta testing, and pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) to examine the acceptability and feasibility of the MyChoices app.MethodsThis 3-phase study includes 4 theater testing groups for app refinement with a total of approximately 30 YMSM; for beta testing, including quantitative assessments and exit interviews, with approximately 15 YMSM over a 2-month period; and for a pilot RCT with 60 YMSM. The pilot will assess feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the MyChoices app, compared with referrals only, in increasing HIV testing and PrEP uptake. All participants will be recruited at iTech clinical research sites in Boston, MA, and Bronx, NY.ResultsApp refinement is underway. Enrollment for the pilot RCT began in October 2018.ConclusionsMyChoices is one of the first comprehensive, theory-driven HIV prevention apps designed specifically for YMSM. If MyChoices demonstrates acceptability and feasibility in this pilot RCT, a multicity, 3-arm randomized controlled efficacy trial of this app and another youth-optimized app (LYNX) versus standard of care is planned within iTech. If shown to be efficacious, the app will be scalable, with the ability to reach YMSM across the United States as well as be geographically individualized, with app content integrated with local prevention and testing activities.International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/10694

Young men who have sex with men account for approximately 20% of incident HIV infections in the U.S. Antiretroviral pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) administered as a daily pill has been shown to decrease HIV acquisition in at-risk individuals. New modalities for PrEP are being developed and tested, including injectable PrEP; however, acceptability of these emerging modalities has not yet been examined in youth. We conducted six focus groups with 36 young men and transgender men and women who have sex with men in Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles in 2016 to assess interest in and preference for different PrEP modalities. Youth were purposively recruited based on diversity of age, race/ethnicity, and prior PrEP experience. Data were coded using content coding based on key domains of the interview guide, in particular around the central themes of interest in and barriers and facilitators to injectable PrEP use. Participants were knowledgeable about oral PrEP but suggested barriers to broader uptake, including stigma, marginalization, and access to information. While participants were split on preference for injectable versus oral PrEP, they agreed quarterly injections may be more manageable and better for those who have adherence difficulties and for those who engage in sex more frequently. Concerns specific to injectable PrEP included: severity/duration of side effects, pain, level of protection prior to next injection, distrust of medical system and injections, and cost. Understanding barriers to and preferences for diverse prevention modalities will allow for more HIV prevention options, improved products, and better interventions, thus allowing individuals to make informed HIV prevention choices.