IMPROVING THE ASSESSMENT OF CHILDREN AND YOUTH WHO PRESENT WITH GENDER DYSPHORIA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Practitioners working with gender non-conforming children and youth ascribe to general guidelines based on the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People (2012). Guidelines inform clinical practice and assessment and emphasize the need for gender affirming care but do not include strict treatment criteria. Consequently, there are multiple perspectives and approaches in the field regarding effective assessment and treatment of gender diverse and transgender clients. The current study investigates the perspectives and satisfaction of transgender youth and their parents surrounding gender health assessments (e.g., hormone readiness assessments). Twenty-five parents and 22 youth who were accessing gender health services through a community outpatient clinic completed a questionnaire about the assessment process. Data was analyzed using mixed methods. Similar response patterns were found between groups. When asked about the need for comprehensive assessment (92.0%; n = 23) of parents and (91.0%; n = 20) of youth agreed or strongly agreed that a comprehensive assessment is necessary. Emergent themes included the use of comprehensive assessment as a measure to rule out other contributing factors, to increase understanding and support for gender variant expression, and to aid in identity formation. Regarding the number of sessions needed to complete a comprehensive assessment, parents and youth shared similar perspectives with the mean number of 3.96 (SD = 0.96) desired sessions for parents and 3.14 sessions (SD = 1.14) for youth. Qualitatively, the most common theme shared by parents and youth was the importance of taking an individualized approach to assessment length depending on the needs of the child and family. The greatest variation between response groups was in reference to whether parents should be involved in the assessment process. Among parents, almost all (92.0%; n = 23) agreed or strongly agreed that parents should be involved in the process, whereas just over half of youth (63.6%; n = 14) felt this way. Additionally, 36.4% (n = 8) of youth disagreed or strongly disagreed with parental involvement. Rationale for involvement included increasing parents' understanding and support of the child and being able to provide important details about development. Many youth shared comments about the complexity of parental support and how involvement must depend on the level of support from the parents and their relationship with their child. This study aims to increase clinical understanding of the experiences of those seeking gender health assessment services to inform and improve practices to better serve this community.
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 | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».