LGBT+ Youth Perspectives on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Questions in the Growing Up in Ireland Survey: A Qualitative Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors engage with an important question regarding how to best collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity. I commend the authors' participatory research design. The paper could benefit from a review of recommended demographic assessment practices in the existing literature, as their contribution fits into that broader discussion and it has been a growing research area lately. It would also help for the authors to explicitly discuss how much weight readers should put into the conclusions drawn given the very small sample size of interviewees. They could also consider implications for data collection of this type outside of the GUI survey, if only in the discussion.

Author Response

Comments and response to Reviewer 1

 

Thank you for your review and encouraging feedback that we have engaged with an important question regarding how to best collect data on sexual orientation and gender identity.

We welcome the opportunity to address your feedback in order to strengthen the article and address the specific points you have raised.

our suggestion that the article could benefit from a review of recommended demographic assessment practices in the existing literature. This was extremely helpful and in response, we have given the article a new title, re-written the abstract and restructured the Introduction. We have mentioned the research attention with adult populations and discussed the emergent literature on population-based sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection with youth. This suggestion has also brought clarity to the research design and methods, and brought focus to the combined Results and Discussion.

Thank you for your comment commending the participatory research design. We have attended to your suggestion to explicitly discuss how much weight readers should put into the conclusions drawn given the very small sample size. By refining and revising the combined Results and Discussion section, we have sought to highlight the contribution of these rich, nuanced accounts by contextualizing these within the literature, and demonstrating how PPI Panel members views align with best practice.

Your suggestion that we consider implications for SOGI data collection of outside of the Growing Up in Ireland (GUI) survey is very welcome. This has been strengthened throughout the article, in the Introduction, as noted above and specifically stated in the rationale. A summary has been included in the combined Results and Discussion, to demonstrate the implications beyond GUI. We have provided a template in Figure 5, which aligns with best practice, for suggested wording on consecutive sex and gender questions, expanded sexual orientation identity categories, and including the particularly well-phrased transgender question from GUI. By situating this article within the emergent literature, we have highlighted the potential contribution of the article to this growing field.

Thank you, again for your review and feedback. This has been a very positive process and we have really benefited from your suggestions in order to improve the article. We feel the revised manuscript has been strengthened by addressing your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the article is extremely important in terms of social problems. I suggest not including Figures 1 and 2 in the article. A probe can be given as an appendix or an example of questionnaire items can be given. Are the figures created by the researcher? If it does not belong to the researcher, brandy must be given. The social importance of the work and its contribution should be clearly emphasized. Also, the recommendations section should be revised.

Author Response

Comments and response to Reviewer 2

 

Thank you for your review and encouraging feedback that the subject of the article is extremely important in terms of social problems. 

 

We appreciate your suggestion that the social importance of the work and its contribution should be clearly emphasized in order to improve the article. The article has a new title, we have re-written the abstract and restructured the Introduction. We have mentioned the research attention with adult populations and discussed the emergent literature on population-based sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection with youth. We have explicitly stated in the rationale that this article may be of broader interest with the growing attention to this This suggestion has also brought clarity to the research design and methods, and brought focus to the combined Results and Discussion.

 

Your suggestions about the Figure 1 and 2 were very helpful, with Figure 2 re-created by the authors to better illustrate the questionnaire context. Figure 2 has been removed.

 

We have revised the research design and methods in order to bring further clarity. In addition, Appendix A with the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) has been included at the end of the article.

 

The combined Results and Discussion has been re-written. The findings are clearly presented to demonstrate the social importance of the study and its contribution. This provided an opportunity to create Figures which better reflect the overarching theme (Figure 2), the  findings in relation to SOGI placement (Figure 3) and SOGI phrasing (Figure 4).

To ensure the discussion of findings are coherent and compelling, a summary has been included at the end of the Results and Discussion, demonstrating the contribution of qualitative narratives, and contextualizing these within the literature. This provided an opportunity to revise the recommendations section. A template outlined in Figure 5, aligns with best practice, and provides wording on consecutive sex and gender questions, expanded sexual orientation identity categories, and including the particularly well-phrased transgender question from GUI. This seeks to respond to your suggestion that we highlight the social importance of this work and its contribution to this emergent research field, with implications beyond GUI.

We very much appreciate your suggestions in order to improve the article. The revised manuscript has been strengthened by addressing your comments. Thank you again for your review and feedback.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

While the topic of paper is of potential interest to readers of the journal, this paper was written in a way that readers might find it very difficult to understand and follow. 1) Authors emphasized that youth co-authors were involved in this paper. Their roles and backgrounds are unclear. Why are young people involving in this paper? What are their relationships with other co-authors as well as respondents of this study? Appreciate authors’ attempt to have this paper co-created with young people, however, their positions are very confusing. Authors mentioned that “The overarching aim was to develop an in-depth understanding of youth co-authors’ 163 insights into the SOGI survey question design in GUI. The aim, objectives, and potential 164 implications are outlined in Figure 4” (page 6). So, are they also the respondents of the survey? In page 12, authors mentioned that “none of the youth co-authors participated in the GUI study”. It is very confusing whether the six participants listed in table 1 are youth co-authors or not. 2) Authors included too much irrelevant information about the study in this paper. Many details about the study are not only unhelpful but also misguide readers to understand the purpose of this particular study. What was the qualitative analysis that authors of this paper actually undergoing? This question has not been answered clearly in the abstract, nor in the main text. I have no idea what the authors were trying to present even after reading the entire paper. This paper has to be significantly trimmed down and left only the most important and relevant contents. 3) If this is a qualitative study, the part of survey is totally unrelated. What are the points of including them? There are too many tables and figures but none of them are well organized. If I understand correctly, this study might be about how a group of young people (a total of six young people?) helping to revise the SOGI questions in GUI. If so, I do not understand why this study was conducted in such a complicated manner. Please explain and justify. 

Author Response

Comments and response to Reviewer 3

 

Thank you for your review and comment that the topic of the paper is of potential interest to readers of the journal.

We appreciate your detailed response, particularly the need to attend to the way the article has been written, making it difficult for readers to understand and follow. We acknowledge that your review indicated that the English was very difficult to understand/incomprehensible. An effort has been made to simplify the language as much as possible, with the exception of the verbatim quotations.

We now address the specific points you have raised:

 

• Authors emphasized that youth co-authors were involved in this paper. Their roles and backgrounds are unclear. Why are young people involving in this paper? What are their relationships with other co-authors as well as respondents of this study? Appreciate authors’ attempt to have this paper co-created with young people, however, their positions are very confusing.

Thank you for your comment that you appreciate our attempt to co-create the paper with the young people. We also understand that their role and background was potentially confusing and have sought to provide further clarity. The youth co-authors are now referred to as PPI Panel members throughout. In accordance with statistical data control measures, particularly in relation to identity disclosure, ethical approval specifically stated that no one from GUI Cohort ’98 would be recruited. Within the Methods and Materials section, in relation to ethical considerations, we have referred to this to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of GUI respondents was maintained. There is no overlap between the PPI Panel and GUI respondents. To provide further distinction, we refer to GUI respondents as Cohort ‘98 throughout. In relation to data collection, the first author conducted all the consultations, with other co-authors only seeing the outputs following NVivo analysis. Further clarification of the roles and background of the PPI Panel has been included in the researcher characteristics section,. The recruitment section has been strengthened to provide a rationale for the purposive sampling of PPI Panel members.

 

• Authors included too much irrelevant information about the study in this paper. Many details about the study are not only unhelpful but also misguide readers to understand the purpose of this particular study. What was the qualitative analysis that authors of this paper actually undergoing? This question has not been answered clearly in the abstract, nor in the main text.

We acknowledge your comments and in response, we have given the article a new title, and re-written the abstract to provide clarity. The Introduction has been restructured and provides background to changes to the ways in which are collected in population-based surveys, with attention rationale has been refined to provide clarity as to the purpose of the study. The Methods and Materials were edited and streamlined, providing clarity on the aim and objectives. The Results and Discussion were further revised, in order to ensure that only the most relevant content is included.

 

3) If this is a qualitative study, the part of survey is totally unrelated. What are the points of including them? There are too many tables and figures but none of them are well organized. If I understand correctly, this study might be about how a group of young people (a total of six young people?) helping to revise the SOGI questions in GUI. If so, I do not understand why this study was conducted in such a complicated manner. Please explain and justify. 

We acknowledge the need to provide clarity on the background for this study. We have explained that it developed in response to a query regarding improved question wording to inform future Waves of SOGO data collection. This query was very welcome because SOGI data collection involves a complex interplay of factors that contribute to measurement of LGBT+ youth orientations and identities. We have included specific reference to the growing attention to representative data collection with youth samples, coinciding with the availability of large datasets with questions on sexual orientation identity (not attraction or behaviour), and recent, but limited, inclusion of gender identity. We have removed a number of Figures; and those that are now included better reflect the overarching theme (Figure 2), the  findings on SOGI placement (Figure 3) and SOGI phrasing (Figure 4). This article is the first to ask young people their views on SOGI question placement and phrasing and the co-produced analysis offers the potential to enhance data quality. In addition, the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research has been completed and included as Appendix A, at the end of the article. The SRQR has been used to guide redrafting of the Methods and Materials section to simplify how the study was conducted.

 

We have really benefited from your suggestions in order to improve the article. Thank you for your review and feedback.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for the revision. I do not have further suggestions.