Chest Binding and Care Seeking Among Transmasculine Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Chest binding, or compressing the chest tissue, is a common practice among transmasculine individuals that can promote mental health, but frequently results in negative physical health symptoms. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence and correlates of care seeking for binding-related health concerns among transmasculine adults. Methods: Descriptive statistics were calculated and logistic regression models were run using data from the Binding Health Project, a cross-sectional online survey among transgender adults who had practiced chest binding (n=1800). The analysis was restricted to transmasculine individuals who had consistent access to health care and were female assigned at birth or intersex (n=1273). Results: Of 1273 participants, 88.9% had experienced at least one binding-related symptom and 82.3% believed that it was important to discuss chest binding with their health care provider, while 14.8% had sought care related to binding. Participants reporting pain, musculoskeletal, or neurological symptoms had 3.19, 1.85, and 1.72 times the adjusted odds, respectively, of seeking care compared to those who did not report those symptoms (95% confidence intervals [CIs]: 1.38–7.37; 1.12–3.06; 1.10–2.68). Care seeking was associated with feeling safe and comfortable initiating a conversation about binding with one's provider (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.07, 95% CI 1.32–3.24). Care seeking was not significantly associated with feeling comfortable receiving a chest examination (AOR=1.07, 95% CI 0.71–1.62). Conclusion: Low rates of care seeking for binding-related symptoms may be driven by lack of access to a provider with whom patients feel safe and comfortable, rather than by general discomfort with chest examinations. While transmasculine patients may be most likely to present with musculoskeletal, neurological, or pain-related concerns, providers should also assess for other symptoms. Providers should be familiar with the benefits and potential complications of binding and initiate non-stigmatizing positive discussions about binding with their transmasculine patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".