Hormone therapy decision‐making processes: Transgender youth and parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study explored how transgender (trans) youth and parents of trans youth made decisions around hormone therapy initiation as well as trans youth experiences of barriers to care. METHODS: Participants included 21 trans youth (ages 14-18) and 15 parents of trans youth who resided in British Columbia, Canada. Data for this grounded theory research consisted of transcripts and lifeline drawings collected through semi-structured interviews conducted August 2016 through February 2017. RESULTS: The decision-making processes of youth and of parents are illustrated in three-phase temporal models, starting with discovery, leading to (inter)action while seeking care, and reflection after hormone therapy initiation. Youth who sought hormone therapy were clear about their decision to access this care. Throughout these processes, youth experienced numerous parent- and system-related barriers to care. Youth with the lowest levels of parent support experienced more system barriers, with non-binary/genderfluid youth experiencing greater barriers and less support for hormone therapy than youth with binary genders. A new barrier identified in this study was health care provider imposed requirements for parental involvement and/or approval, which rendered some youth unable access to hormone therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Health care providers should be aware of the deliberation and information-seeking in which youth engage prior to seeking care as well as the temporally misaligned decision-making processes of youth and parents. Understanding the challenges trans youth experience due to insufficient parental support and system barriers can provide important context for health care providers striving to provide accessible, gender-affirming care and decision-making support for trans youth.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".