Evaluation of the Decision Aid for Genital Surgery in Transmen
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Multiple options of genital gender-affirming surgery are available to transmen. The transman should be able to weigh these options based on the outcomes, risks, and consequences that are most important to him. For this reason, a decision aid for genital surgery in transmen (DA-GST) was developed. It aims to support the transman in making thoughtful choices among treatment options and facilitate shared decision-making between the healthcare professionals and the transindividual. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the newly developed DA-GST. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using mixed methods. Transmen considering to undergo genital surgery were eligible to partake in the study. The questionnaires used in this study were developed by adapting the validated Dutch translation of the "Decisional Conflict Scale," the "Measures of Informed Choice," and the "Ottawa Preparation for Decision-Making Scale." Qualitative interviews were conducted querying their subjective experience with the DA-GST. The data from the questionnaires were statistically analyzed, and the data from the interviews were thematically analyzed. OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures were decisional conflict and decisional confidence measured via self-report items and qualitative data regarding the use of the DA-GST via interviews. RESULTS: In total, 51 transmen participated in the questionnaires study, 99 questionnaires were analyzed, and 15 interviews were conducted. Although confident in their decision, most transmen felt responsible to collect the necessary information themselves. The ability to go through the decision aid independently aided the decision-making process by providing information and highlighting their subjective priorities. Suggested additions are pictures of postoperational outcomes and personal statements from experienced transmen. CLINICAL TRANSLATION: The DA-GST could be implemented as an integral part of transgender health care. Clinicians could take the individual personal values into account and use it to accurately tailor their consult. This would ultimately improve the doctor-patient relationship and decrease decisional regret by enhancing effective shared decision-making. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This mixed-method design study confirmed the use of the DA-GST while taking a broad range of decisional factors into account. Limitations include the absence of a baseline analysis and the limited power for the comparison of treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the DA-GST helped transmen feel more prepared for their personal consult with the surgeon, reduced decisional conflict, and increased their decisional confidence. Mokken SE, Özer M, van de Grift TC, et al. Evaluation of the Decision Aid for Genital Surgery in Transmen. J Sex Med 2020;17:2067-2076.
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 | 0,016 | 0,037 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».