Feedback Structures Generating Policy Exposure, Gatekeeping, and Care Disruption in Transgender and Gender Expansive Healthcare

Transgender and gender-expansive (TGE) communities face persistent health inequities that are reproduced through everyday administrative and clinical encounters across care systems. A feedback-focused lens can clarify how those inequities are generated and sustained. Objective: To identify and validate feedback loops that create policy exposure and institutional gatekeeping in TGE healthcare and to surface leverage points to stabilize their continuity of care. Methods: Two facilitated, Zoom-based Group Model Building (GMB) sessions were conducted in March 2021 with eight TGE participants (mean age 38 years; range 22–63; transfeminine and transmasculine identities; multiracial, White, and SWANA racial identities) recruited through a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community center, followed by a participant member-checking session to validate loop structure, causal direction, and interpretive accuracy. Analysis focused explicitly on identifying reinforcing and balancing feedback structures, rather than isolated barriers, to explain how policy exposure and institutional gatekeeping are generated over time. Results: Participants co-constructed a nine-variable Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) with six feedback structures, four reinforcing and two balancing that interact dynamically to amplify or dampen policy exposure, institutional gatekeeping, and continuity of care, which were organized across structural, institutional/clinical, and individual/community tiers. Reinforcing dynamics linked structural stigma, exclusion from formal employment, institutionalized provider bias, and enacted stigma to degraded care experience, increased trauma and distrust, and disrupted continuity, manifesting as policy exposure (e.g., coverage volatility, denials) and gatekeeping (e.g., discretionary documentation, referral hurdles). Community-based supports and peer/elder navigation functioned as balancing loops that reduced trauma, improved continuity and encounters, and, over time, dampened provider bias. A salient theme was the visibility/invisibility paradox: symbolic inclusion without workflow redesign can inadvertently increase exposure and reinforce harmful loops.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Systems
Published
2026-01-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/systems14010112
Primary Topic
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Feedback Structures Generating Policy Exposure, Gatekeeping, and Care Disruption in Transgender and Gender Expansive Healthcare

Augustus Klein, Laura Janine Mintz, Braveheart Gillani, Dana M. Prince et al.
Systems
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
article

Feedback Structures Generating Policy Exposure, Gatekeeping, and Care Disruption in Transgender and Gender Expansive Healthcare

Augustus Klein, Laura Janine Mintz, Braveheart Gillani, Dana M. Prince, Meagan Ray-Novak, Scott Emory Moore, Rem Martin, Alyssa Roberts
article en

Abstract

Transgender and gender-expansive (TGE) communities face persistent health inequities that are reproduced through everyday administrative and clinical encounters across care systems. A feedback-focused lens can clarify how those inequities are generated and sustained. Objective: To identify and validate feedback loops that create policy exposure and institutional gatekeeping in TGE healthcare and to surface leverage points to stabilize their continuity of care. Methods: Two facilitated, Zoom-based Group Model Building (GMB) sessions were conducted in March 2021 with eight TGE participants (mean age 38 years; range 22–63; transfeminine and transmasculine identities; multiracial, White, and SWANA racial identities) recruited through a Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) community center, followed by a participant member-checking session to validate loop structure, causal direction, and interpretive accuracy. Analysis focused explicitly on identifying reinforcing and balancing feedback structures, rather than isolated barriers, to explain how policy exposure and institutional gatekeeping are generated over time. Results: Participants co-constructed a nine-variable Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) with six feedback structures, four reinforcing and two balancing that interact dynamically to amplify or dampen policy exposure, institutional gatekeeping, and continuity of care, which were organized across structural, institutional/clinical, and individual/community tiers. Reinforcing dynamics linked structural stigma, exclusion from formal employment, institutionalized provider bias, and enacted stigma to degraded care experience, increased trauma and distrust, and disrupted continuity, manifesting as policy exposure (e.g., coverage volatility, denials) and gatekeeping (e.g., discretionary documentation, referral hurdles). Community-based supports and peer/elder navigation functioned as balancing loops that reduced trauma, improved continuity and encounters, and, over time, dampened provider bias. A salient theme was the visibility/invisibility paradox: symbolic inclusion without workflow redesign can inadvertently increase exposure and reinforce harmful loops.

SystemsVol. 14(1)
University of North Carolina at Charlotte (US), University at Albany, State University of New York (US), Cleveland Hearing & Speech Center (US), Westfield State University (US), Case Western Reserve University (US)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 86%
LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.