Patients’ perspectives on informational needs surrounding gender-affirming vaginoplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the informational preferences of patients undergoing gender-affirming vaginoplasty during their surgical journey. An anonymous survey was sent to 30 such patients who had the procedure between September 2018 and September 2020. The survey included Likert-scale questions about the importance of various topics and inquired about their preferred sources and formats for receiving this information. The responses of 17 individuals (56.7% response rate) were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative thematic analysis. Key findings indicated that all topics in the survey were rated as moderately important or higher. Specifically, for 29 out of 30 pre-operative topics (96.7%), participants preferred written information, and for 27 topics (90.0%), they favored receiving information directly from their surgeon. Thematic analysis revealed five main themes: recovery process, satisfaction, trust in healthcare providers, information delivery, and neovaginal dilation and depth. In conclusion, individuals undergoing gender-affirming vaginoplasty have significant informational needs. They prefer to receive information from their surgical team, supplemented by written resources and verbal discussions. Notably, the importance of understanding neovaginal dilation and being aware of possible complications emerged as a key concern. The study also highlighted the importance of cultural competence and trust-building with healthcare providers, underscoring the need for more inclusive care practices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".