Search results for: Iran Uddin

Authors: Paul J. McKay

Abstract:

Large-scale genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigating genetic contributions to sexual orientation and gender identity are largely lacking and may reduce stigma experienced in the LGBTQ+ community by providing an underlying biological explanation for queerness. While there is a growing consensus within the scientific community that genetic makeup contributes – at least in part – to sexual orientation and gender identity, there is a marked lack of genomics research exploring polygenic contributions to queerness. Based on recent (2019) findings from a large-scale GWAS investigating the genetic architecture of same-sex sexual behavior, and various additional peer-reviewed publications detailing novel insights into the molecular mechanisms of sexual orientation and gender identity, we hypothesize that sexual orientation and gender identity are complex, multifactorial, and polygenic; meaning that many genetic factors contribute to these phenomena, and environmental factors play a possible role through epigenetic modulation. In recent years, large-scale GWAS studies have been paramount to our modern understanding of many other complex human traits, such as in the case of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Despite possible benefits of such research, including reduced stigma towards queer people, improved outcomes for LGBTQ+ in familial, socio-cultural, and political contexts, and improved access to healthcare (particularly for trans populations); important risks and considerations remain surrounding this type of research. To mitigate possibilities such as invalidation of the queer identities of existing LGBTQ+ individuals, genetic discrimination, or the possibility of euthanasia of embryos with a genetic predisposition to queerness (through reproductive technologies like IVF and/or gene-editing in utero), we propose a community-engaged research (CER) framework which emphasizes the privacy and confidentiality of research participants. Importantly, the historical legacy of scientific research attempting to pathologize queerness (in particular, falsely equating gender variance to mental illness) must be acknowledged to ensure any future research conducted in this realm does not propagate notions of homophobia, transphobia or stigma against queer people. Ultimately, in a world where same-sex sexual activity is criminalized in 69 UN member states, with 67 of these states imposing imprisonment, 8 imposing public flogging, 6 (Brunei, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen) invoking the death penalty, and another 5 (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates) possibly invoking the death penalty, the importance of this research cannot be understated, as finding a biological basis for queerness would directly oppose the harmful rhetoric that “being LGBTQ+ is a choice.” Anti-trans legislation is similarly widespread: In the United States in 2022 alone (as of Oct. 13), 155 anti-trans bills have been introduced preventing trans girls and women from playing on female sports teams, barring trans youth from using bathrooms and locker rooms that align with their gender identity, banning access to gender affirming medical care (e.g., hormone-replacement therapy, gender-affirming surgeries), and imposing legal restrictions on name changes. Understanding that a general lack of knowledge about the biological basis of queerness may be a contributing factor to the societal stigma faced by gender and sexual orientation minorities, we propose the initiation of large-scale GWAS studies investigating the genetic basis of gender identity and sexual orientation.

Keywords: genome-wide association studies (GWAS), sexual and gender minorities (SGM), polygenicity, community-engaged research (CER)

Procedia PDF Downloads 69

Authors: Tim Crocker-Buque, Sandra Mounier-Jack, Natasha Howard

Abstract:

Background: Due to both the increasing scale and speed of urbanisation, urban areas in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) host increasingly large populations of under-immunized children, with the additional associated risks of rapid disease transmission in high-density living environments. Multiple interdependent factors are associated with these coverage disparities in urban areas and most evidence comes from relatively few countries, e.g., predominantly India, Kenya, Nigeria, and some from Pakistan, Iran, and Brazil. This study aimed to identify, describe, and assess the main tools used to measure or improve coverage of immunisation services in poor urban areas. Methods: Authors used a qualitative review design, including academic and non-academic literature, to identify tools used to improve coverage of public health interventions in urban areas. Authors selected and extracted sources that provided good examples of specific tools, or categories of tools, used in a context relevant to urban immunization. Diagnostic (e.g., for data collection, analysis, and insight generation) and programme tools (e.g., for investigating or improving ongoing programmes) and interventions (e.g., multi-component or stand-alone with evidence) were selected for inclusion to provide a range of type and availability of relevant tools. These were then prioritised using a decision-analysis framework and a tool selection guide for programme managers developed. Results: Authors reviewed tools used in urban immunisation contexts and tools designed for (i) non-immunization and/or non-health interventions in urban areas, and (ii) immunisation in rural contexts that had relevance for urban areas (e.g., Reaching every District/Child/ Zone). Many approaches combined several tools and methods, which authors categorised as diagnostic, programme, and intervention. The most common diagnostic tools were cross-sectional surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, secondary analysis of routine data, and geographical mapping of outcomes, resources, and services. Programme tools involved multiple stages of data collection, analysis, insight generation, and intervention planning and included guidance documents from WHO (World Health Organisation), UNICEF (United Nations Children's Fund), USAID (United States Agency for International Development), and governments, and articles reporting on diagnostics, interventions, and/or evaluations to improve urban immunisation. Interventions involved service improvement, education, reminder/recall, incentives, outreach, mass-media, or were multi-component. The main gaps in existing tools were an assessment of macro/policy-level factors, exploration of effective immunization communication channels, and measuring in/out-migration. The proposed framework uses a problem tree approach to suggest tools to address five common challenges (i.e. identifying populations, understanding communities, issues with service access and use, improving services, improving coverage) based on context and available data. Conclusion: This study identified many tools relevant to evaluating urban LMIC immunisation programmes, including significant crossover between tools. This was encouraging in terms of supporting the identification of common areas, but problematic as data volumes, instructions, and activities could overwhelm managers and tools are not always suitably applied to suitable contexts. Further research is needed on how best to combine tools and methods to suit local contexts. Authors’ initial framework can be tested and developed further.

Keywords: health equity, immunisation, low and middle-income countries, poverty, urban health

Procedia PDF Downloads 139