Conditions for shared decision making in the care of transgender youth in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Information is lacking on the role shared decision making plays in the care of transgender (trans) youth. This qualitative, descriptive study explored how trans youth, parents and health care providers engaged or did not engage in shared decision-making practices around hormone therapy initiation and what conditions supported shared decision-making approaches in clinical practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 47 participants in British Columbia, Canada, and analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach. While formal shared decision-making models were not used in practice, many participants described elements of such approaches when asked about their health care decision-making processes. Others described health care interactions that were not conducive to a shared decision-making approach. The key finding that emerged through this analysis was a set of five conditions for supporting shared decision making when making decisions surrounding initiation of hormone therapy with trans youth. Both supportive relationships and open communication were necessary among participants to support shared decision making. All parties needed to agree regarding what decisions were to be made and what role each person would play in the process. Finally, adequate time was needed for decision-making processes to unfold. When stakeholders meet these five conditions, a gender-affirming and culturally safer shared decision-making approach may be used to support decision making about gender-affirming care. Implications for clinical practice and future research are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".