MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7133053043

Gender Affirmation Surgery: Understanding and Accounting for the Social and Economic Impacts of Access to Care Through an Institutional Ethnography of Patient Experiences in the Ontario Health System

2024· dissertation· W7133053043 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Chantal R. Valiquette

Notice bibliographique

RevueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Langue
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Toronto
Mots-clésHealth careContext (archaeology)SituatedEthnographyReimbursementScope (computer science)Perspective (graphical)Economic evaluation
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

AbstractInequitable coverage of services between and within provinces and strict criteria to qualify for gender affirming care are barriers that continue to exist for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals trying to access gender affirmation surgery (GAS). Using institutional ethnography (IE), this project aimed to provide evidence supporting an economic reimbursement model that considers the lived experience of TGD patients and their healthcare practitioners in accessing GAS care through Ontario’s health system. Drawing from the experiences of TGD individuals and their healthcare practitioners, this study explored the ways in which social and economic experiences of these populations can be used to inform system level changes in the provision of GAS. OutlineFirst, a theoretical/ontological and methodological approach was established for conducting an institutional ethnography of, and for, economic evaluations, a novel IE approach (Chapter 2). The ways that IE evidence could be integrated into health economic evaluations (IE for economic evaluations) fell into categories of establishing point of view (i.e., using IE standpoint to determine which perspective an economic evaluation should take), considering system(s) scope (i.e., using IE evidence to validate or identify valuations of health), and utilization of textual materials (i.e., contextualizing health system processes through resources and academic literature). The approach developed was situated in the context of current health economics literature related to health equity. How IE evidence may be used for broader assessment of economic evaluations as tools in health policy decision-making (IE of economic evaluations) was also conceptualized. Prior to conducting an IE of or for GAS economic evaluations, an initial traditional economic evaluation was done. To understand the value and economic case for funding GAS in Ontario, a cost-utility analysis (CUA) was performed by estimating the effectiveness of top surgery GAS in Ontario from a conventional health system payer perspective (Chapter 3). To complement the economic evaluation, IE evidence was generated to evaluate the social and economic impacts of GAS from the standpoint of TGD individuals pursuing surgical care as well as healthcare practitioners (HCPs) involved in GAS provision. IE analysis identified barriers (related to principles of the Canada Health Act) experienced by TGD patients in the current OHIP referral pathway and considered how medical ethics principles have been applied to TGD populations undergoing GAS (Chapter 4). Finally, this thesis considered how the IE evidence could be utilized to fill gaps in the scant literature on the range of health and non-health outcomes associated with GAS that are not routinely accounted for in traditional economic evaluations. Applications of this work were also discussed (Chapter 5). IE evidence was applied to conceptualize how future GAS health economic evaluations could incorporate the experiential expertise from TGD patients and providers. Evidence suggested that developing TGD specific health valuations, taking societal perspectives, re-defining health outcomes of importance, and contextualizing TGD health literature were ways in which IE expertise that reflects institutional knowledge could better align economic evaluation model perspectives and outputs. Further IE analysis allowed for critical appraisal of how economic evaluations of GAS provision are assessed by healthcare decision-makers. This work demonstrated how IE evidence can validate or identify important characteristics of health economic evaluations through centering lived experience expertise. It also identified the limitations of an integrated IE approach by critically analyzing the ways in which economic evaluations are utilized in healthcare decision-making.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,704
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,589

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,012
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0110,016
Communication savante0,0060,004
Science ouverte0,0020,007
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,218
Tête enseignante GPT0,476
Écart entre enseignants0,258 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTSpace→Même sujetLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→Travaux en français237 207→