CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 218LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyGender, Sexuality, and EducationGender and Feminist Studies

Health of Non-binary and Genderqueer People: A Systematic Review

Open access
Scandurra, Cristiano, Mezza, Fabrizio, Maldonato, Nelson Mauro, Bottone, Mario, Bochicchio, Vincenzo, Valerio, Paolo, Vitelli, Roberto·2019·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01453PMC PMC6603217
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Non-binary and genderqueer (NBGQ) people are those who do not identify within the gender binary system (male Vs. female), not falling exclusively in man/male or woman/female normative categories. A higher proportion of NBGQ people is usually found within young persons. This population is marginalized and, as such, is at risk of stigmatization and of developing negative health outcomes. As literature on the health of NBGQ people is sparse, this study aims at systematically review the limited studies on this field. Methods: The research questions which guided the systematic review were: (1) What are the differences in the health levels between NBGQ and binary transgender (BT) individuals? (2) What are the differences in the health levels between NBGQ and cisgender individuals? (3) Which medical and psychological interventions are most suitable for improving NBGQ health? According to PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Results: Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria for the current systematic review. Among them, 9 were focused on the health differences between NBGQ and BT individuals, 4 of the latter and 1 individually were focused on the health differences between NBGQ and cisgender individuals, and 1 was focused on the evaluation of health outcomes related to medical procedures. No studies assessed psychological interventions aimed at improving health in NBGQ individuals. All studies were cross-sectional, did not generally recruit a large sample of NBGQ individuals, and used non-probability sample design. Results related to the difference in health between NBGQ and BT were mixed; indeed, some found a better health status while others a worse one. Results related to the differences in health between NBGQ and cisgender highlighted higher health needs in NBGQ than in BT individuals. The only study analyzing the effects of medical interventions on health found that NBGQ female-assigned at birth individuals improved their quality of life after chest surgery. Conclusions: Although scholars are starting to pay attention to the NBGQ health, research needs to be expanded both in terms of methodology and research contents. Clinical, health-related social policies, and research recommendations in this field are reported.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01453

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There is a scarcity of studies dedicated to intersex, transgender and nonbinary individuals, leaving open questions regarding health differences across the gender spectrum.

    “there are still open questions regarding health differences across the gender spectrum, reflected by the scarcity of studies dedicated to intersex, transgender and nonbinary individuals12,13.”

    From Sex and gender differences and biases in artificial intelligence for biomedicine and healthcare (2020) · cites this paper as [13]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Institute of Medicine (IOM) (2011). The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 22013611

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Scandurra, C., Mezza, F., Maldonato, N. M., Bottone, M., Bochicchio, V., Valerio, P., & Vitelli, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Naples Federico II (IT)
  • University of Calabria (IT)
Corresponding author
Scandurra, Cristiano
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2019-06-25
Volume
10
Pages
1453-1453
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01453
PMC
PMC6603217
OpenAlex
W2955662239
Cited by
218
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 1
FWCI
3.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Archive of Doctoral Theses and Digital Collections (University of Calabria) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender, Sexuality, and Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
non-binary people, genderqueer people, gender nonconformity, health disparities, transgender health, cisgender comparison, gender identity, stigmatization, gender-affirming medical interventions, thoracic surgery, quality of life, health interventions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review