Trans people's experiences with assisted reproduction services: a qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
STUDY QUESTION: What are the experiences of trans persons (i.e. those whose gender identity does not match the gender assigned to them at birth) who sought or accessed assisted reproduction (AR) services in Ontario, Canada, between 2007 and 2010? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of trans persons report negative experiences with AR service providers. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Apart from research examining desire to have children among trans people, most of the literature on this topic has debated the ethics of assisting trans persons to become parents. To-date, all of the published research concerning trans persons' experiences with AR services is solely from the perspective of service providers; no studies have examined the experiences of trans people themselves. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Secondary qualitative research study of data from nine trans-identified people and their partners (total n = 11) collected as part of a community-based study of access to AR services for sexual and gender minority people between 2010 and 2012. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Trans-identified volunteers (and their partners, when applicable) who had used or attempted to access AR services since 2007 from across Ontario, Canada, participated in a 60-90 minute, semi-structured qualitative interview. Qualitative analysis was performed using a descriptive phenomenological approach. Emerging themes were continually checked against the data as part of an iterative process. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The data highlight barriers to accessing AR services for trans people. Participant recommendations for improving AR service provision to better meet the needs of this population are presented. These recommendations address the following areas: (i) AR service provider education and training; (ii) service provider and clinic practices and (iii) clinic environment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The majority of study participants were trans people who identified as men and who resided in major urban areas; those living in smaller communities may have different experiences that were not adequately captured in this analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: While existing literature debates the ethics of assisting trans people to become parents through the use of AR, our study demonstrates that they are already accessing or attempting to access these services. This reality necessitates a shift toward exploring the ways in which AR services can be improved to better meet the needs of this population, from the perspectives of both service users and service providers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research-Institute of Gender and Health, in partnership with the Assisted Human Reproduction Canada: Catalyst Grant: Psychosocial Issues Associated with Assisted Human Reproduction (FRN-103595). S.M. was supported by a Canada Graduate Scholarship from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council, as well as research funding from Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. S.J.-A. was supported by an Ontario Graduate Scholarship funded by the Province of Ontario and the University of Toronto. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».