Gender-affirming care education in pharmacy: a scoping review protocol of practices in Canada and the USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Gender-affirming care refers to a range of social, psychological, medical and/or surgical interventions provided to affirm one's gender. Pharmacists play a key role in gender-affirming care and are involved with choosing optimal treatments, monitoring progress/side-effects and providing education. However, it is currently unknown what gender-affirming care education is provided to pharmacy students and pharmacists according to information available in published literature. This is important to identify potential education gaps in pharmacy curricula and an understanding of the current state of gender-affirming care education in pharmacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol follows guidance from Arksey and O'Malley and Levac and colleagues. The population, concept and context framework are used to specify the research question and subsequently the search strategy. Database searching will occur across four databases: Medline, Embase, APA PsycINFO and Scopus; with the search date ranging from inception to 1 January 2025. Eligible studies will include pharmacy students or pharmacists, and examine the presence of gender-affirming care pharmacy education in Canada and the USA. There are no restrictions to date. Article screening and extraction will occur independently and in duplicate. Educational interventions, gender-affirming care content and recommendations extracted from each article will be narratively synthesised. This work is undertaken with patients and public involvement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is a review of published studies and does not collect any human data. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.
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 | 0.121 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.006 |
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".