Mental Health Status of Cisgender and Gender-Diverse Secondary School Students in China
Authors: Yuanyuan Wang, Hui Yu, Yong Yang, Jack Drescher, Ronghua Li, Weijia Yin, Renjie Yu, Shuilan Wang, Wei Deng, Qiufang Jia, Kenneth J. Zucker, Runsen Chen
Journal: JAMA Network Open (2020)

<h3>Importance</h3> Transgender or gender nonconforming (TGNC) adolescents face a wide range of physical and mental health concerns. However, there has been no school-based study to explore the prevalence and mental health status of these adolescents in mainland China. <h3>Objectives</h3> To assess the mental well-being of TGNC adolescents in China by comparing them with their cisgender peers. <h3>Design, Setting, and Participants</h3> This was a cross-sectional survey study. Of the 12 354 adolescents who completed the questionnaire, 246 did not specify to which sex they identified and were therefore excluded from further analysis. Therefore, a total of 12 108 adolescents were included from 18 secondary schools in Suzhou city, China, from June 2019 to July 2019. Participants provided consent and answered questions on sex assigned at birth and gender identity. <h3>Main Outcomes and Measures</h3> All participants completed questionnaires, including the Patient Health Questionnaire for the measurement of depressive symptoms, a generalized anxiety disorder screening, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and a self-harm and suicide risk checklist. The frequency of being bullied at school was also measured. Participants who reported their perceived gender as the opposite of their assigned sex at birth were classified as<i>transgender</i>, those who identified as neither male nor female were classified as<i>nonbinary</i>, and those who were not sure about their perceived gender were classified as<i>questioning</i>. All of these participants were categorized as TGNC adolescents. <h3>Results</h3> A total of 12 108 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 15.8 [1.0] years; 6518 [53.8%] assigned male at birth [AMAB]) participated in the study. Of the 6518 participants AMAB in the sample, 5855 (89.8%) were classified as cisgender boys, 208 (3.2%) as transgender girls (transgender youth who perceive their current gender identity to be female), 138 (2.1%) as nonbinary youth AMAB, and 317 (4.9%) as questioning youth AMAB. Of the 5590 participants assigned female at birth (AFAB), 4142 (74.1%) were classified as cisgender girls, 861 (15.4%) as transgender boys (transgender youth who perceive their current gender identity to be male), 112 (2.0%) as nonbinary youth AFAB, and 475 (8.5%) as questioning youth AFAB. Compared with cisgender adolescents, TGNC adolescents reported significantly higher health concerns including lower overall health (<i>t</i><sub>11 872 </sub>= –7.36;<i>P</i> &lt; .001), poorer sleep (<i>t</i><sub>11 683 </sub>= 10.49;<i>P</i> &lt; .001), higher depression and anxiety symptoms (<i>t</i><sub>11 830 </sub>= 12.43 and<i>t</i><sub>11 847 </sub>= 11.47, respectively;<i>P</i> &lt; .001), and higher rate of self-harm and suicide ideation (<i>t</i><sub>11 860 </sub>= 12.22;<i>P</i> &lt; .001). The TGNC youth who were AMAB were also more likely to be bullied at school than cisgender boys (transgender girls: odds ratio [OR], 2.34 [95% CI, 1.64-3.33]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 1.97 [95% CI, 1.23-3.16]; and questioning youth AMAB: OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.43-2.67]). The TGNC groups also reported significantly greater amounts of thoughts of self-harm (transgender girls: OR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.24-4.19]; transgender boys: OR, 4.06 [95% CI, 3.47-4.74]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 2.86 [95% CI, 1.93-4.23]; nonbinary youth AFAB: OR, 3.71 [95% CI, 2.46-5.59]; questioning youth AMAB: OR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.98-3.44]; and questioning youth AFAB: OR, 3.35 [95% CI, 2.70-4.16]), thoughts of suicide (transgender girls: OR, 3.93 [95% CI, 2.88-5.38]; transgender boys: OR, 3.71 [95% CI, 3.10-4.21]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 2.11-4.63]; nonbinary youth AFAB: OR, 3.78 [95% CI, 2.50-5.71]; questioning youth AMAB: OR, 2.53 [95% CI, 1.93-3.33]; and questioning youth AFAB: OR, 3.94 [95% CI, 3.17-4.88]), suicide plan formation (transgender girls: OR, 4.44 [95% CI, 2.88-6.83]; transgender boys: OR, 2.66 [95% CI, 2.03-3.50]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 5.36 [95% CI, 3.22-8.93]; nonbinary youth AFAB: OR, 4.06 [95% CI, 2.25-7.30]; and questioning youth AFAB: OR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.63-3.43]), deliberate self-harm during the last month (cisgender girls: OR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.33-1.68]; transgender girls: OR, 2.74 [95% CI, 1.93-3.91]; transgender boys: OR, 3.06 [95% CI, 2.57-3.66]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 2.56 [95% CI, 1.66-3.94]; nonbinary youth AFAB: OR, 3.06 [95% CI, 1.95-4.81]; questioning youth AMAB: OR, 2.14 [95% CI, 1.56-2.92]; and questioning youth AFAB: OR, 2.53 [95% CI, 2.00-3.01]), and attempts of suicide (transgender girls: OR, 4.35 [95% CI, 2.88-6.56]; transgender boys: OR, 2.92 [95% CI, 2.26-3.76]; nonbinary youth AMAB: OR, 3.94 [95% CI, 2.36-6.55]; nonbinary youth AFAB: OR, 3.06 [95% CI, 1.67-5.63]; questioning youth AMAB: OR, 2.61 [95% CI, 1.73-3.94]; and questioning youth AFAB: OR, 1.93 [95% CI, 1.33-2.81]) compared with cisgender boys. <h3>Conclusions and Relevance</h3> Results of this cross-sectional survey study suggest poor mental health status among TGNC adolescents in China; in addition, findings suggest a compelling need for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers to address these mental health problems. Particular school-based interventions are recommended to support the mental health well-being of TGNC adolescents.