Integrating perspectives of transgender and gender-diverse youth, family members, and professionals to support their health and wellbeing – a mixed-method study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current literature highlights a strong link between the poor health outcomes of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals and their negative experiences in various areas of life. Most of these publications rely on adults' memories, lacking a focus on the current experiences and needs of young transgender and gender-diverse individuals. Furthermore, previous studies on support for these young people often solely consider the perspectives of TGD adults or professionals and rarely involve parents' viewpoints. METHODS: This study will use a mixed sequential method with a participatory approach. Firstly, the qualitative phase will explore the difficulties and needs of TGD (15-20 years old) and of the families and professionals who support them. Results from this part will be used to develop the questionnaire for the quantitative phase, with the help of a community board. Secondly, based on participatory epidemiological research, the quantitative phase will use an intersectional perspective to measure the impact of individual and structural factors on the quality of life and well-being of transgender and gender-diverse young people. Finally, a co-creation phase will be undertaken to formulate recommendations based on the results of the first two phases. DISCUSSION: This research aims at better understanding the influence of gender identity on the quality of life and health of TGD young people and their families and to identify protective and risk factors that affect their vulnerabilities. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Erasme Faculty Hospital (CCB B4062023000140). As this research is participatory and part of a PhD dissertation, we aim to disseminate the results through our partners' networks and structures locally, and internationally through conferences and peer-reviewed journals.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".