Gender non-binary adolescents’ somatic and mental health throughout 2020

Abstract

BackgroundNon-binary gender adolescents are particularly vulnerable and more likely to be exposed to several socio-psychological difficulties and disorders. It is vital to discover and act on the vulnerabilities they encounter. The present study aims to describe the somatic and mental health, affect state, frequency of risk behaviors, victimization and negative psychosocial factors, as well as the personality profiles of non-binary adolescents. In this study the concept of gender non-binary is used and captured respondents who selected “neither of these” as their gender from the possible options (female/male/neither of these).Materials and methodsData was collected between September 2020 and February 2021 in Sweden, Morocco, Serbia, Vietnam, and the United States. The cross-sectional, retrospective study utilized the electronic version of the Mental and Somatic Health without borders (MeSHe) survey. From the over 5,000 responses of 15–19-year-old adolescents, 58 respondents identified as being non-binary, and built our study population. Their data was analyzed with descriptive statistic methods.ResultsClose to a fourth of adolescents identifying as non-binary reported the existence of at least one somatic disease. The most prevalent somatic disease was allergies. Almost one-third had suffered from pain either often or all the time in the past 12 months. The highest levels of perceived psychological distress were measured using obsessive–compulsive symptoms, depression, and interpersonal sensitivity. The average level of alcohol and drug use during the past 12 months was low. About 40% of non-binary adolescents reported having experienced physical abuse, and half of them experienced psychological abuse at some point in their lives. Seventeen percent reported living with adults with alcohol-use problems. Non-binary adolescents’ personalities were found to be dominated by high scores in Openness, Neuroticism, and Agreeableness.ConclusionThis study presents a detailed biopsychosocial picture of a multinational sample of non-binary adolescents. Our study suggests that awareness and support are required from all fields of society, including family, school, healthcare, and educational institutions, for cis-normative culture to progress toward a greater understanding of and respect for gender diversity.

Neglected gaps in improving the health, wellbeing, and care for sexual and gender minority young people living in low- and lower-middle- income countries: a scoping review

“…Almost half of the papers ( n = 37, 46.84%) were cross-sectional studies [ 23 – 27 , 34 – 36 , 38 , 43 , 47 , 49 , 53 , 58 , 59 , 61 , 62 , 64 , 67 , 72 , 75 – 77 , 79 – 82 , 85 – 91 , 97 , 99 , 101 ] (see Table 1 ). An additional twenty-three publications (29.11%) employed qualitative designs [ 30 , 33 , 37 , 40 – 42 , 45 , 48 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 66 , 69 – 71 , 73 , 78 , 92 – 94 ], five (6.33%) were mixed methods [ 28 , 29 , 46 , 68 , 83 ], four used a pre-post design (5.06%) [ 84 , 95 , 96 , 98 ], and two (2.53%) were case studies [ 32 , 63 ].…”

“…Less than half of the papers ( n = 35, 44.30%) exclusively recruited or focused on young people ages 10–24 or any subset of the 10–24 age range [ 26 , 28 , 30 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 41 , 43 , 45 – 47 , 50 , 52 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 66 – 69 , 71 , 74 , 75 , 79 – 83 , 89 , 93 , 94 , 96 , 98 , 99 ]. Twenty-six additional papers (32.91%) had a sample that was made up of majority young people (as determined by mean, median, or majority criteria) [ 23 – 25 , 27 , 29 , 36 , 44 , 49 , 53 , 56 , 59 , 62 , 64 , 70 , 72 , 76 , 77 , 84 – 88 , 90 , 92 , 95 , 97 ].…”

“…Almost two-thirds of included papers ( n = 50, 63.29%) included SGM individuals—at least to some extent—as participants. In 30 papers (37.97%), SGM populations were specifically recruited as study participants [ 27 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 41 , 45 , 46 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 56 , 57 , 60 , 61 , 66 – 70 , 72 , 73 , 76 – 78 , 83 , 84 , 87 , 92 ] and the remaining 20 (25.31%) studied a broader population but provided disaggregated data on SGM study participants [ 24 , 26 , 37 – 39 , 43 , 44 , 47 , 49 , 58 , 59 , 62 , 75 , 79 – 81 , 86 , 88 , 96 , 97 ]. Moreover, when taking into account age of study participants, only 27 of the 50 papers with SGM study participants focused exclusively on young people (ages 10–24) [ 26 , 28 , 30 , 35 , 37 – 39 , 41 , 43 , 45 – 47 , 50 , 52 , 54 , 57 , 58 , 60 , 61 , 66 – 69 ...…”

“…Half of the included papers ( n = 40, 50.63%) examined the mental health, sexual health, and resilience of SGM young people, as well as comparative studies that explored the differential health risks that SGM young people are subjected to compared to their cisgender and/or heterosexual peers. [ 16 , 26 – 28 , 30 , 32 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 43 – 45 , 47 , 50 – 52 , 55 , 56 , 58 – 62 , 65 , 67 , 68 , 72 , 75 – 77 , 80 , 81 , 83 , 84 , 86 – 88 , 92 , 96 , 100 ]. Additionally, three scoping reviews [ 16 , 51 , 55 ] and two literature reviews were included in this category [ 65 , 100 ], such as Pike et al’s assessment of existing survey research on gender minority adolescents in low- and middle- income countries [ 16 ].…”

“…Twenty-three papers ( n = 23, 29.11%) explored different aspects of the mental health and emotional wellbeing of SGM young people [ 26 , 28 , 32 , 35 , 39 , 40 , 43 – 45 , 47 , 56 , 58 – 62 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 72 , 80 , 81 , 87 ], of which fourteen focused exclusively on SGM participants [ 28 , 32 , 35 , 40 , 45 , 47 , 56 , 60 , 61 , 67 , 68 , 70 , 72 , 87 ]. These 14 papers covered topics such as SGM identity management and the need to conceal SGM identities in many social contexts to feel safe, the impact of religion on internalized homo/transphobia, and experiences of violence.…”