Understanding the needs of professionals who provide psychosocial care for children and adults with disorders of sex development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disorders in sex development (DSD) can be treated well medically, but families will encounter many psychosocial challenges. Promoting counselling to facilitate acceptance and coping is important yet equality of access is unknown. This study investigated the modalities of psychosocial care provided in centres of DSD care. METHODS: An international survey conducted among 93 providers of psychosocial care, identified through clinical networks, registries and professional forums. RESULTS: Forty-six respondents from 22 different countries filled out the survey (49%). Most respondents (78%) were based in hospital-based expert teams. Referrals came from paediatric endocrinologists (76%), gynaecologists (39%) and paediatric urologists (37%). Psychological counselling was most frequently given to parents (74%), followed by children (39%), adolescents (37%) and adults (11%) and was most frequently focused on coping and acceptance of DSD (54%), education (52%), the atypical body (39%) and genital (41%), decisions on genital surgery (33%), complications with sexual intercourse (29%), disclosure (28%) and acceptance of infertility (11%). Respondents most frequently observed DSD related confusion about gender (54%), acceptance of cross gender behaviour (50%), anxiety (43%) and sadness and depression (38%). CONCLUSIONS: Most psychosocial care is provided to parents. It is assumed that parental support is important as acceptance is conditional to become affectionate caretakers. Although it may be more difficult for youngsters to communicate about their condition and treatment, providing opportunity to bring up issues that are important for them, is imperative. Clinicians and parents should be aware that parental and patients' interests may not correspond completely. Psychosocial management should also include transition and adult care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".