A103 DESIGNING QUALITATIVE RESEARCH FOR UNDERSTANDING THE EXPERIENCES OF TRANGENDER AND GENDER DIVERSE PERSONS WITH GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASE OR SEEKING GASTROINTESTINAL CARE
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people make up approximately 1% of the population, with 2.1% of Generation Z adults (born 1997-2003) identifying as TGD. As a marginalized population, TGD people have been shown to have poorer access to health care services and report worse health-related outcomes. While the health care disparities faced by TGD people need to be addressed by Medicine broadly, TGD people may face unique barriers in gastrointestinal (GI) care. To date, there has been no systematic assessment of the GI health care needs of TGD people. With the aging of Generation Z, GI care providers will increasingly be responsible for the care of TGD people, and it is important to understand their needs and experiences to ensure they receive appropriate and sensitive care. Purpose Recognizing the absence of literature on the issues faced by TGD people with GI disease or seeking care for GI issues, we plan to use qualitative research methodology to aggregate and analyze narrative experiences of TGD people of diverse backgrounds, identities and experiences. Our research will focus on TGD people’s interactions with GI care providers, and on the experience of being a TGD person with GI disease or having sought evaluation of GI symptoms. Method We will use a qualitative approach to gain a broad understanding of the experiences and perceptions of TGD people with: 1) established GI diseases, in particular IBD and DGBIs (disorders of gut-brain interaction), and 2) GI symptoms or concerns requiring GI investigations. We will use snowball sampling to reach out to TGD people in Canada and the US, with the aim of achieving diverse representation across gender identity, surgical status, age, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Participants will sit for semi-structured interviews to elicit narratives about their beliefs and experiences while living with GI disease and/or seeking care for GI issues. Interview transcripts will be subjected to objective and researcher-guided thematic analysis to identify commonalities and disparities in experiences and points-of-view. Result(s) Our proposed presentation will highlight our process in designing and initiating this project. We believe our methods and approach to this work is an important discussion and will help shape next steps in this field. We may also present some of the early results of our semi-structured interviews. Conclusion(s) This work will provide a foundation to guide further research into the process and outcomes of care for TGD people with GI disease and undergoing GI evaluations and will provide a framework to develop best practices for GI care providers pertaining to the care of TGD people. Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below None Disclosure of Interest None Declared
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 | 0,085 | 0,064 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
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 ».