MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404519333 · doi:10.1186/s41687-024-00785-x

International study to develop a patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate outcomes of gender-affirming care - the GENDER-Q

2024· article· en· W4404519333 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Manraj Kaur, Shane D. Morrison, Tim C. van de Grift, Astrid Ditte Højgaard, Amalie Lind Jacobsen, Natasha Johnson, Margriet G. Mullender, Lotte Poulsen, Thomas Satterwhite, Richard A. Santucci, John L. Semple, Charlene Rae, Kinusan Savard, Jens Ahm Sørensen, Danny A. Young‐Afat, Andrea L Pusic, Anne F. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsFleming CollegeUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchZonMwPlastic Surgery Foundation
KeywordsMeasure (data warehouse)Outcome (game theory)Patient-reported outcomePsychologyMedicineNursingComputer scienceQuality of life (healthcare)Data miningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To meaningfully understand outcomes of gender-affirming care, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are grounded in what matters to individuals seeking care are urgently needed. The objective of this study was to develop a comprehensive PROM to assess outcomes of gender-affirming care in clinical practice, research, and quality initiatives (the GENDER-Q). METHODS: Internationally established guidelines for PROM development were used to create a field test version of the GENDER-Q. In-depth interviews were conducted from December 2018 to March 2020 with youth and adults aged 16 years and older who were seeking or had received gender-affirming care at outpatient clinics providing gender-affirming care located within tertiary care centers or communities in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands or the US. Data were analyzed and used to develop a conceptual framework and an item pool, which was used to develop preliminary scales. Between February 2021 to November 2021, iterative feedback was sought from clinicians and patient participants on the scales and used to refine or develop new scales. The revised scales were pilot-tested using a crowd-sourcing platform between February 2022 and April 2022. RESULTS: Data from interviews with 84 participants (aged 34 ± 14 years) resulted in a conceptual framework of the GENDER-Q with 13 domains measuring health-related quality of life, sexual, urination, gender practices, voice, hair, face and neck, body, breasts, genital feminization, chest, genital masculinization, and experience of care. Preliminary versions of 44 scales were developed covering most concepts in the conceptual framework. Iterative feedback was obtained from clinician experts (4 to 37 experts per scale; response rate, 67%) and 7-14 patient participants (depending on scale). All scales were refined, and 15 new scales were developed, resulting in 55 scales in the field test version of the GENDER-Q. In total, 601 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people (aged 25 ± 6 years) participated in the pilot field test and the data were used to make changes to the field test survey. CONCLUSION: The GENDER-Q was developed using extensive input from TGD individuals and clinician experts and represents the most comprehensive set of independently functioning scales that are available to date. An international field test of the GENDER-Q was completed in 2024 and the GENDER-Q is available for use in patient care, clinical research and quality improvement efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.084
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0840.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient-Reported OutcomesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207