Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Practical Guide to Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) from a sample of patients and healthcare professionals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study conducted August-October 2023. SETTING: Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic. PARTICIPANTS: Patient participants seeking care and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. The PG-PROM-GAC was sent to participants via email for review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Three validated tools to measure acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility were administered: the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). The percentage of participants indicating agreement or disagreement with items on the AIM, IAM and FIM was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 132 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients (mean age, SD: 33, 14) and 13 gender-affirming healthcare professionals (mean age, SD: 43, 11) completed the AIM, IAM and FIM, representing a range of gender identities. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the patient-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 50% for each item. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 20% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the healthcare professional-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 38% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 15% for each item. CONCLUSIONS: Gender-affirming healthcare professionals and TGD patients find the PG-PROM-GAC acceptable, appropriate and feasible. The PG-PROM-GAC is ready-to-use for clinicians, policy-makers and researchers committed to service improvement for gender-affirming care.
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 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 | 0.021 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it