English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Transgender women in the United States (U.S.) experience a disproportionate burden of HIV infection and challenges to engagement in HIV prevention and care. This excess burden is driven by structural and economic inequities. Microeconomic interventions may be effective strategies for reducing HIV inequities for this population. However, few studies have explored transgender women’s preferences for microeconomic interventions to address structural determinants of HIV vulnerability.    Methods  We conducted individual interviews with 19 adult transgender women in 2 U.S. cities (Richmond, VA and St. Louis, MO) who reported one or more sexual risk behaviors and recent economic hardship related to employment/income, housing, or food security. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic content analysis.    Results  The majority (74%) of transgender women were racial/ethnic minorities with mean age of 26.3 years. 89% were currently economically vulnerable; and 23% were employed full-time. 37% reported living with HIV. Participants expressed strong support for unrestricted vouchers, with many expressing the need for funds to support gender-affirming interventions. Assistance with how to budget and save and support for job acquisition, career planning, and employment sustainment were also preferred, including access to non-stigmatizing employment. Visible transgender leadership, group empowerment, and small (rather than large) numbers of participants were considered important aspects of intervention design for transgender women, including outreach through existing transgender networks to facilitate inclusion. Incorporating HIV counseling and testing to reduce vulnerability to HIV was acceptable. However, transgender women enrolled in the study preferred that HIV not be the focus of an intervention.    Conclusions  Flexible microeconomic interventions that support gender affirming interventions, improve financial literacy, and provide living-wage non-stigmatizing employment are desired by economically vulnerable transgender women. While not focused on HIV, such interventions have the potential to reduce the structural drivers of HIV vulnerability among transgender women.

U.S. transgender women’s preferences for microeconomic interventions to address structural determinants of HIV vulnerability: a qualitative assessment