MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407869264 · doi:10.1037/hea0001476

A multisector study assessing readiness for providing gender-affirming services to transgender women.

2025· article· en· W4407869264 on OpenAlexaff
Karin E. Tobin, Jury Candelario, Abigail K. Winiker, Connor Volpi, Sarah Pollock, Lois M. Takahashi, Melissa Davey‐Rothwell

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsPricewaterhouseCoopers (Canada)
FundersBloomberg American Health Initiative
KeywordsTransgenderTransgender womenTransgender PersonPsychologyGender identitySocial psychologyClinical psychologyApplied psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineMen who have sex with menFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Transgender women experience significant health disparities and are at disproportionately high risk of violence, stigmatization, and discrimination. Stigma and discrimination are enacted by staff and leaders in multiple public and service sectors including housing, physical and behavioral health, criminal justice and law enforcement, workforce development, and education. Multisectoral approaches recognize that health involves coordination and cooperation across various sectors, government departments, and stakeholders. The purpose of this study was to assess readiness and capacity to provide gender-affirming services. METHOD: The Division Director of Access to Prevention, Advocacy, Intervention and Treatment/Special Services for Groups a nonprofit organization recruited participants via email from the following 10 sectors: behavioral health, medical, disability, law enforcement, criminal justice, housing, workforce development, faith-based, legal aid, and education. In-depth interviews were conducted with 44 participants. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a framework approach, a method of deductive analysis. Participants (n = 27) attended a follow-up meeting that included a presentation of the findings from the interview analysis and held small group discussions about sector capacity for gender-affirming services. RESULTS: Findings indicated that the capacity of providing training, leadership support, and policies varied. Gaps included a lack of funding for trainings and programs, the need for a more exclusive focus on transgender issues, and inclusion of transgender women participation to ensure the inclusion of their lived experiences. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a multisectoral approach is feasible. Across participants, best practices included clear and explicit trans-affirming policies, establishment of safe spaces/physical indicators of allyship, and representation within organizations of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other sexual identities community (including employment and visible supportive images). (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.148
GPT teacher head0.559
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207