Exploring the practice principles and beliefs of trans-care providers working with trans and detrans youth: A survey-based analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective While research on detransition in young people has helped to develop a data-driven understanding of this new phenomenon, it only became available late 2020. This small-scale exploratory project aims to examine the attitudes and beliefs on the topic of detransition held by trans-care providers working with trans and non-binary youth at a moment when research evidence was limited.Method An online survey was circulated between September 1, 2020, and January 31, 2021. A total of 147 professionals participated, of whom 61 completed more than 60% of the online survey. The survey examined how attitudes and beliefs of these 61 participants compare between providers who have or may have followed youth who detransitioned (YDT) (n = 29) and those who have not (n = 22). Descriptive and Mann-Withney U tests using SPSS V 28 were performed. Qualitative data were analised through thematic analysis and used to illustrate quantitative data.Results The analysis uncovered slight but significant differences between these two groups of care providers. The results indicate that those who have interacted with YDT are less likely to have adhered to the empirical evidence available at the time of the survey compared to those who have not.Conclusion While the reasons for these differences are not entirely clear, the article suggests that media content may have captured the attention of providers who have followed YDT, potentially leading to confirmation bias.Implications The latest peer-reviewed evidence has to be more readily accessible to all providers, and providers must critically appraise evidence to ensure that their practices are more data-driven and insure best intervention for all gender-diverse youth.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".