Pediatric Primary Care Providers’ Perspectives on Telehealth Platforms to Support Care for Transgender and Gender-Diverse Youths: Exploratory Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background Access to gender-affirming care services for transgender and gender-diverse youths is limited, in part because this care is currently provided primarily by specialists. Telehealth platforms that enable primary care providers (PCPs) to receive education from and consult specialists may help improve the access to such services. However, little is known about PCPs’ preferences regarding receiving this support. Objective This study aimed to explore pediatric PCPs’ perspectives regarding optimal ways to provide telehealth-based support to facilitate gender-affirming care provision in the primary care setting. Methods PCPs who had previously requested support from the Seattle Children’s Gender Clinic were recruited to participate in semistructured, 1-hour web-based interviews. Overall, 3 specialist-to-PCP telehealth modalities (tele-education, electronic consultation, and telephonic consultation) were described, and the participants were invited to share their perspectives on the benefits and drawbacks of each modality, which modality would be the most effective, and the most important characteristics or outcomes of a successful platform. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis framework. Results The interviews were completed with 15 pediatric PCPs. The benefits of the tele-education platform were developing a network with other PCPs to facilitate shared learning, receiving comprehensive didactic and case-based education, having scheduled education sessions, and increasing provider confidence. The drawbacks were requiring a substantial time commitment and not allowing for real-time, patient-specific consultation. The benefits of the electronic consultation platform were convenient and efficient communication, documentation in the electronic health record, the ability to bill for provider time, and sufficient time to synthesize information. The drawbacks of this platform were electronic health record–related difficulties, text-based communication challenges, inability to receive an answer in real time, forced conversations with patients about billing, and limitations for providers who lack baseline knowledge. With respect to telephonic consultation, the benefits were having a dialogue with a specialist, receiving compensation for PCP’s time, and helping with high acuity or complex cases. The drawbacks were challenges associated with using the phone for communication, the limited expertise of the responding providers, and the lack of utility for nonemergent issues. Regarding the most effective platform, the responses were mixed, with 27% (4/15) preferring the electronic consultation, 27% (4/15) preferring tele-education, 20% (3/15) preferring telephonic consultation, and the remaining 27% (4/15) suggesting a hybrid of the 3 models. Conclusions A diverse suite of telehealth-based training and consultation services must be developed to meet the needs of PCPs with different levels of experience and training in gender-affirming care. Beyond the widely used telephonic consultation model, electronic consultation and tele-education may provide important alternative training and consultation opportunities to facilitate greater PCP independence and promote wider access to gender-affirming care.