MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914635018 · doi:10.1111/medu.13796

Transphobia rather than education predicts provider knowledge of transgender health care

2019· article· en· W2914635018 on OpenAlexaff
Daphna Stroumsa, Deirdre A. Shires, Caroline R. Richardson, Kim D. Jaffee, Michael R. Woodford

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
FundersNational Association of Social Workers Foundation
KeywordsTransgenderTransphobiaHealth careFamily medicineMedicineDemographicsKnowledge surveyNursingPsychologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients face significant hurdles in accessing affirming, knowledgeable care. Lack of provider knowledge presents a substantial barrier to both primary and transition-related care and may deter patients from seeking health care. Little is known about factors that affect provider knowledge or whether exposure to TGD health content during training is associated with improved knowledge among providers. Using the TGD Healthcare Knowledge Scale, this study aimed to determine whether prior education on TGD health predicts clinicians' current knowledge regarding health care for TGD patients. METHODS: An online survey examining exposure to TGD content and knowledge of TGD health care was distributed to all primary care providers in an integrated health care system in the Midwestern United States. Multivariable linear regression was used to predict provider knowledge, controlling for demographics, transphobia and other potential confounders. RESULTS: The response rate was 57.3% (n = 223). The mean knowledge score was 7.41 (SD = 1.31) on a 10-point scale. Almost half (48.4%, n = 108) had no formal education on TGD health care, yet half (49.7%, n = 111) of providers reported previously caring for at least one transgender patient. In regression analysis, provider knowledge of TGD health care was associated with transphobia (β = -0.377, 95% CI = -0.559 to -0.194, p < 0.001), but not with hours of formal education (β = -0.027, 95% CI = -0.077 to 0.023, p = 0.292) or informal education (β = -0.012, 95% CI = -0.033 to 0.009, p = 0.259). CONCLUSIONS: Increasing hours of education related to TGD health care may not be sufficient to improve providers' competence in care for TGD individuals. Transphobia may be a barrier to learning that needs to be addressed. Broader efforts to address transphobia in society in general, and in medical education in particular, may be required to improve the quality of medical care for TGD 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.387 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations230
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical EducationSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207