Experiences of Transgender Men in Accessing Care in Gynecology Clinics [24G]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Transgender, or “trans,” individuals face barriers to accessing medical care, however little is known regarding trans men’s experiences in accessing gynecologic care in particular. This study sought to determine if trans men in Ontario avoid presenting for gynecologic care and to gain understanding of their experiences in accessing this care. METHODS: Trans men ≥18 years old and living in Ontario were invited to participate in an online questionnaire. The study poster with questionnaire URL was distributed in both physical and online spaces frequented by the trans community. RESULTS: Of 89 respondents, 84/87 (97%) reported using a pronoun different from that associated with their birth-assigned gender, 71/87 (82%) reported current or past testosterone use, and 46/85 (54%) had undergone gender confirming surgery. 72/78 (92%) felt anxious about seeking gynecologic care and 43/79 (54%) had avoided attending gynecologic care settings because they were trans, citing the following reasons: encountering gendered forms (50%), sitting in a waiting room with cis women (54%), being misgendered (59%), having to educate providers (70%), and undergoing the gynecologic exam itself (86%). Many respondents found the gynecologic exam physically (60%) and emotionally (75%) distressing. Respondents endorsed options for an improved exam experience, including providers using gender non-specific language (85%), explaining each step before it occurs (55%), and having a support person present (47%). CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted areas for improvement in care provision that can be adopted by gynecologic care providers in order to make the experiences of trans men more inclusive, safe, and positive.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".