MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082919809 · doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.07.081

The Desire and Status of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Surgery in Transgender Men and Women in China: A National Population Study

2020· article· en· W3082919809 on OpenAlexaff
Ye Liu, Ying Xin, Ji Qi, Haining Wang, Tianpei Hong, Xin Yang, Li Bi, Xu Chang, Gail Knudson, Zhenmin Zhao, Bailin Pan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsVancouver Biotech (Canada)University of British Columbia
FundersInterdisciplinary Medicine Seed Fund of Peking UniversityPeking University Third Hospital
KeywordsTransgenderChinaHormone therapyTransgender PersonMedicineSex reassignment surgery (male-to-female)PopulationGender studiesPsychologyDemographySociologyHistoryInternal medicineTranssexualCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgery are important medically necessary approaches to transgender care. However, few related data exist in China. AIM: To understand the desire and access of transgender cares in the Chinese transgender men and women population. METHODS: A cross-sectional self-selecting survey targeting the Chinese transgender population was conducted in 2017 using a snowball sampling method. Participants completed an online questionnaire anonymously. Gender identity was verified by specifically designed questions. Data analysis of this study was performed in 2019. OUTCOMES: The main outcome was the status of receiving transgender medical care, including the desire vs actual state of receiving gender-affirming hormone treatment and gender-affirmation surgery, methods of accessing hormonal therapy and surgery, and risky behaviors associated with obtaining treatments. RESULTS: Of the total 2060 valid questionnaires, there were 1,304 transgender individuals (626 transgender men and 678 transgender women), with a median age of 22 (interquartile range, 19-26) years. Among them, 1,036 (79.4%) expressed desires for hormonal therapy, but of 1,036, 741 (71.5%) considered it difficult to obtain medications from doctors. Of 1,036 individuals, 275 (26.5%) and 172 (16.6%) had thoughts or behaviors of self-injury, respectively, when lacking access to hormone therapy. Of 1,036 individuals, 602 (58.1%) had used hormones. Of those 602 hormone users, 407 (67.6%) had ever obtained medications from informal drug dealers, and 372 (61.8%) of them did not perform regular monitoring. 868 of 1,303 (66.6%) participants had received or wanted to undergo gender-affirming surgeries, but 710 of 868 (81.8%) considered the surgery resources not adequate or very scarce. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The transgender medical resources in China are scarce, and many transgender individuals have engaged in high-risk activities to access care. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: This is the first study to focus on the current status of gender-affirming hormone therapy and surgery in the Chinese transgender population, providing valuable and real-world data for understanding the need for transgender health care in China. But, the online questionnaire could not provide the prevalence and other epidemiologic information about transgender individuals in China, and the survey did not address specific medication regimens, dosages, sex hormone levels, and specific hormone therapy-related or surgery-related adverse events. CONCLUSION: Significant improvement in access to gender-affirming medical and surgery care is needed in China. Liu Y, Xin Y, Qi J, et al. The Desire and Status of Gender-Affirming Hormone Therapy and Surgery in Transgender Men and Women in China: A National Population Study. J Sex Med 2020;17:2291-2298.

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)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations31
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207