MP64-01 GENITOURINARY AND SEXUAL WELLBEING-RELATED PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES USED IN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE: AN ANALYSIS OF READABILITY, COMPREHENSIVENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyReconstruction: External Genitalia and Urotrauma (Including Transgender Surgery and Traumatic Fistula) II (MP64)1 May 2024MP64-01 GENITOURINARY AND SEXUAL WELLBEING-RELATED PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES USED IN GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE: AN ANALYSIS OF READABILITY, COMPREHENSIVENESS AND APPROPRIATENESS Meg Quint, Sophia Hu, Marie-Therese Valovska, Devin O'Brien-Coon, Geolani Dy, Andrea Pusic, Manjar Kaur, and William Boysen Meg QuintMeg Quint , Sophia HuSophia Hu , Marie-Therese ValovskaMarie-Therese Valovska , Devin O'Brien-CoonDevin O'Brien-Coon , Geolani DyGeolani Dy , Andrea PusicAndrea Pusic , Manjar KaurManjar Kaur , and William BoysenWilliam Boysen View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001008824.92877.7f.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure how patients feel and function. Several PROMs assessing genitourinary function and sexual well-being have been used in individuals seeking genital gender-affirming care. To be useful in clinical care and research, PROMs should be easy to understand, comprehensive, and relevant. The goal of this study was to provide the evaluate the readability and comprehensiveness of genitourinary and sexual health-related PROMs used in gender-affirming care. METHODS: Common PROMs that measure genitourinary and sexual health-related outcomes in gender-affirming care literature were identified from five recent systematic reviews. Readability analysis was completed at the level of individual items and scale using established readability assessment tools, including Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Gunning Fog Score (GF), Coleman Liau Index (CLI), and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index. The concepts measured by the PROMs were evaluated for comprehensiveness. RESULTS: 16 PROMs were included, of which 12 assessed genitourinary outcomes and 4 assessed sexual health outcomes. A total of 5 genitourinary domains and 3 sexual health domains were identified during concept mapping. Readability analysis showed a median PROM grade level of 9.0 and 11.4 in genitourinary and sexual PROMs, respectively (Figure 1). The Birmingham Bowel and Urinary Symptoms Questionnaire was the most readable PROM (6.5), and the Female Sexual Function Index was least readable PROM (14.9). No single PROM had items from all domains. Multiple PROMs contained double-barreled items and or used outdated terminology. CONCLUSIONS: Most PROMs used in the genital gender-affirming literature failed to meet the readability recommendations (i.e., Grade 6 or less) and were culturally unfit for use in transgender and gender-diverse individuals. While PROMs captured important concepts on an aggregate level, none were specifically designed or comprehensive for a transgender/gender-diverse population. Validated gender-affirming care-specific PROMs that are comprehensible, comprehensive, and relevant are urgently needed to center TGD patient needs, voices, and experiences. Download PPT Source of Funding: Manraj Kaur is supported by the Canadian Institute of Health Research Fellowship Award (2020-24) © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1040 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Meg Quint More articles by this author Sophia Hu More articles by this author Marie-Therese Valovska More articles by this author Devin O'Brien-Coon More articles by this author Geolani Dy More articles by this author Andrea Pusic More articles by this author Manjar Kaur More articles by this author William Boysen More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0,012 | 0,082 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,047 | 0,009 |
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 ».