Lifespan healthcare transitions among individuals with intersex traits in Canada: a mixed-methods and qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To: (1) complete an integrative literature review of transition studies that focus on individuals with intersex traits; (2) conduct an environmental scan of the current resources (practice guidelines, policies and procedures) used by healthcare providers working with Canadians with intersex traits; (3) investigate the experiences of Canadians with intersex traits in their healthcare transitions across the lifespan and (4) assess the understanding of healthcare providers about these transitions. DESIGN: A qualitative prospective community participation study was conducted. It used mixed methods including an environmental scan and semistructured engagement sessions. SETTING: The environmental scan examined resources available throughout Canada. The engagement sessions took place in British Columbia and Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Sixteen participants were recruited. These included 13 individuals with intersex traits (a heterogeneous group of congenital conditions affecting the development of sex characteristics) and three caregivers. METHODS: Mixed methods included an integrated literature review, environmental scan and qualitative approaches developed in collaboration with community partners. RESULTS: The literature review identified gaps in transition care for individuals with intersex traits. The environmental scan uncovered no specific resources used by healthcare providers working with patients with intersex traits, though several general guidelines were used. Engaging providers in the study was problematic. Thematic analysis generated three main themes that emerged from the engagement sessions: (1) transition is a lifespan activity; (2) building personal agency is valuable and (3) well-being promotion is an application of health literacy. CONCLUSIONS: Transition resources for individuals living in Canada with intersex are scarce. Transitions happen across the lifespan with ownership of thought and actions seen as acts of personal agency. Health literacy skills and knowledge change with increased age, yet the primary source of knowledge often remained important in the individual's autobiographical self.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".