MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200202215 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20210061

Health care access among transgender and nonbinary people in Canada, 2019: a cross-sectional survey

2021· article· en· W4200202215 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of VictoriaSt. Michael's HospitalWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRespondentTransgenderCross-sectional studyHealth careConfidence intervalMedicineFamily medicineLogistic regressionDemographyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Previous Canadian studies have identified problems regarding health care access for transgender (trans) and nonbinary people, but all-ages national data have been lacking. This study describes access to care among trans and nonbinary people in Canada, and compares health care access across provinces or regions. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a bilingual, multimode cross-sectional survey (Trans PULSE Canada) from July 26 to Oct. 1, 2019. We recruited trans and nonbinary people aged 14 years and older using convenience sampling. We assessed 5 outcomes: having a primary care provider, having a primary care provider with whom the respondent was comfortable discussing trans health issues, past-year unmet health care need, medical gender affirmation status, and being on a wait-list to access gender-affirming medical care. Average marginal predictions were estimated from multivariable logistic regression models with multiply imputed data. <h3>Results:</h3> The survey included 2873 participants, and 2217 surveys were analyzed after exclusions. Of the 2217 trans and nonbinary respondents, most had a primary care provider (<i>n</i> = 1803; 81.4%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 79.8%–83.0%), with model-predicted probabilities from 52.1% (95% CI 20.2%–84.1%) in the territories to 92.9% (95% CI 83.5%–100.0%) in Newfoundland and Labrador. Of the respondents, 52.3% (<i>n</i> = 1150; 95% CI 50.3%–54.2%) had a primary care provider with whom they were comfortable discussing trans health issues, and 44.4% (<i>n</i> = 978; 95% CI 42.3%–46.4%) reported an unmet health care need. Among participants who needed gender-affirming medical treatment (<i>n</i> = 1627), self-defined treatment completion ranged from an estimated 16.8% (95% CI 0.6%–32.5%) in Newfoundland and Labrador to 59.1% (95% CI 52.5%–65.6%) in Quebec. Of those who needed but had not completed gender-affirming care at the time of the study (<i>n</i> = 1046), 40.7% (<i>n</i> = 416; 95% CI 37.8%–43.6%) were on a wait-list, most often for surgery. These outcomes, with the exception of having a provider with whom one is comfortable discussing trans issues, varied significantly by province or region (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). <h3>Interpretation:</h3> Participants reported considerable unmet needs or delays in primary, general and gender-affirming care, with significant regional variation. Our results indicate that, despite efforts toward equity in access to care for trans and nonbinary people in Canada, inequities persist.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.359 · 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