MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178602421 · doi:10.1111/jan.14943

The process of transitioning for the transgender individual and the nursing imperative: A narrative review

2021· review· en· W3178602421 on OpenAlexaff
Shelley Evans, Jamie Crawley, Debbie Kane, Kathryn Edmunds

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Nursing · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLTransgenderTerminologyPsycINFOPopulationNursing literatureMEDLINENarrativeInclusion (mineral)PsychologyMedicineNursingMedical educationPsychological interventionAlternative medicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The objectives of this study were to bring the experience of the transitioning process for the transgender population to the nursing profession and address the lack of knowledge to promote improved patient outcomes. DESIGN: This study used a narrative review using the literature matrix method. Because of the dearth of trans specific literature, editorials and monologues were included. DATA SOURCE: A broad search was undertaken across all databases including CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health and Google Scholar. Literature from June 1994 to May 2020 was appraised. Non-peer reviewed literature and published texts were procured via Google Alerts. REVIEW METHODS: Selection for inclusion was based on credibility and relevance from a variety of social science disciplines. A narrative analysis was used to identify common themes, incongruencies in schools of thought and perspectives that require consideration. RESULTS: Analysis of the literature revealed the following themes: (a) literature and terminology evolution, (b) transitioning as a process, (c) medicalization of transitioning, (d) generational views on transitioning and (e) needs during transition. CONCLUSION: This review highlights key issues about the transitioning process imperative to nursing when meeting the needs of the transgender population. IMPACT: This review addresses the lack of trans specific literature and lack of consistency in the literature about the understanding of the transitioning process for the transgender population. Main findings? Terminology to explain the transitioning process is ever evolving. Future studies about transitioning need to go beyond the medical lens. Generational views differ in the approach to transitioning, and there are needs unique to this population required during the process. Where and whom will the research impact? The review has significant implications for change in health delivery, nursing policy and formulating nursing practice and education to improve trans competent care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.894

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.440 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced NursingSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207