Testing the influence of minority stress-related experiences on mental wellbeing for trans/gender diverse and cisgender adolescents: a registered report
Authors: Neil Humphrey, Louise Black
(1).png)
Trans and gender-diverse adolescents, those who identify in another way than the traditional binary, are likely to experience poorer mental health and wellbeing than their cisgender peers. Minority stress theory has developed as a possible explanation for some of this inequality: factors such as increased bullying and discrimination lead to excess stress and reduced wellbeing. However, the evidence base remains limited.
Our study aimed to overcome existing methodological limitations through its focus on a robust measure of mental wellbeing; longitudinal design; consideration of several minority-related stressors; controlling for sexuality; and, use of a more granular approach to gender identity than is typical. The study draws on secondary data analysis of the #BeeWell longitudinal cohort (N = 20,383, aged 12-13 at time one, T1). Analyses relating to unregistered hypotheses of T1 (autumn 2021) data were reported: H1, mean differences in T1 wellbeing; H2, mean differences in T1 minority-related stressors. Confirmatory hypotheses relating to T2 (autumn 2022) data were also registered: H3, replication of T1 mean differences in T2 wellbeing; H4, predictions were made about the strength of the association between T1 minority-related stressors, controlling for sexuality, and T2 wellbeing across T1 gender identity groups.
Applying open research practices
The study was designed for a registered report with Royal Society Open Science (RSOS). We submitted our ‘Stage 1’ manuscript in early autumn 2022, at the start of the T2 #BeeWell data collection period. Importantly, this meant that the analyses for hypotheses we wanted to test in relation to T2 wellbeing noted above could not yet have been undertaken. As an extra safeguard, the lead analyst (Louise Black) was locked out of the folder where T2 data were stored until we had received In Principle Acceptance from RSOS. The Stage 1 submission included an introduction that outlined the current state of knowledge, a rationale for the various hypotheses noted above, methodological details of the #BeeWell study, detailed description of the analysis (including code), and results for the unregistered T1 hypotheses.
Overcoming challenges
Completing the Stage 1 submission by the start of the T2 data collection period was challenging, but was ultimately achieved by deprioritising other tasks that did not have immutable deadlines.Similarly, RSOS reviewer feedback led to significant changes to the study design and analysis plan. This, alongside delays in receiving the feedback, meant that the lead analyst had to remain locked out of the data folder for longer than originally anticipated, which impacted on other tasks that made use of the data. This challenge was mitigated by drawing on other staff who were not involved in the paper for said tasks.
Benefits of using these open research practices
There are obvious benefits of registered reports in terms of increased rigour and transparency. It is also comforting to know, now that we have been granted In Principle Acceptance for this paper, that it will be published regardless of what our results actually show with respect to the confirmatory hypotheses noted above.
Top tip
To engage meaningfully in open research practices – and especially co-production – we need to work in our teams to create open, collaborative spaces and to be open to new ways of doing things.