Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on the Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC): analysis of open-ended responses from patients and healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Several international calls have been made for evidence-based patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation for gender-affirming care. The Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is a resource which can help guide PROM implementation efforts, developed using a three-phase participatory research approach with transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals. However, thoughts and perspectives from TGD patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals on the PG-PROM-GAC need to be investigated. OBJECTIVE: Investigate patient and healthcare professional perspectives on the PG-PROM-GAC through analysis of open-ended survey results. DESIGN: Qualitative study analysing open-ended responses from TGD patients and gender-affirming healthcare professionals. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a UK National Health System (NHS) gender clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patients receiving care at an NHS gender clinic and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. Eligible participants were invited to participate in this study via email. INTERVENTION: Participants were sent an open-ended survey to collect responses on the PG-PROM-GAC. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were thematically analysed by two independent researchers and interpreted following guidance from established methods in implementation science. RESULTS: A total of 64 TGD patients and 9 gender-affirming healthcare professionals responded to the open-ended survey (mean (SD) age: 35 (16) and 48 (8), respectively). Four main themes emerged from the data: overall opinions and support for the PG-PROM-GAC, presentation of the PG-PROM-GAC, impact of gender clinic resources on PROM implementation and impact of PROM selection on implementation. Data were used to iterate the PG-PROM-GAC in response to participant feedback. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The PG-PROM-GAC is an acceptable and feasible resource that can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers to guide PROM implementation for gender-affirming care settings, helping to align gender-affirming care with patient needs.
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 | 0.072 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".