MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

123. Voices Of Trans Youth: A Qualitative Exploration of Expectations for Top Surgery

2025· article· en· W4409986681 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ivy Quan, Sylvie D. Cornacchi, Manraj Kaur, Charlene Rae, Anne F. Klassen, Kathleen Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiversity and Career in Medicine
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchPsychologySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Top surgery is an important aspect of gender-affirming healthcare, particularly for transgender and gender diverse (TGD) adolescents, who often navigate complex physical, social, and emotional challenges. This qualitative study aimed to identify TGD youths’ voices regarding their expectations for top surgery. The term expectation refers to a belief or anticipation about what will happen in the future, after top surgery. It can reflect a hope, desire, or assumption about how a situation will unfold, often shaped by past experiences or knowledge. METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with 47 TGD youth from Canada and the USA to develop GENDER-Q Youth, a new patient-reported outcome measure. Of the 47, 35 who were: assigned female at birth, identified as trans male or nonbinary, and were interested in or had top surgery, provided data to address the study aim. RESULTS: We identified six themes regarding youth’s expectations: appearance, body image, binding, clothing, physical activity, and social comfort. A major motivator for surgery was the desire for an appearance aligned with one’s gender identity. Nearly all participants expressed a preference for a flat chest contour. The prevalence of strong patient expectations around aesthetic goals emphasizes the importance of shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. Achieving a flatter chest was intertwined with body image, where many adolescents discussed feelings of disconnect and distress, which had an impact on activities such as taking a shower or looking into mirrors. Postoperative participants reported feeling more connected to their bodies and more confident, which impacted how they interact with themselves and others. The social-related expectations were particularly evident in preoperative participants’ discussions of how top surgery could positively affect their relationships with friends, peers, and intimate partners. Postoperative participants described how top surgery improved their comfort in interacting with others. In addition to social considerations, participants highlighted the functional challenges of binding, often relying on commercial binders. Binding, while providing temporary relief, was frequently uncomfortable or painful and was cited as a common motivation for surgery while postoperative participants discussed feeling relief and freedom because they no longer had to bind. Participants also expected top surgery to enable greater participation in physical activities, an important factor in adolescent well-being. Those who had top surgery discussed being able to participate more freely in activities they enjoyed such as swimming, or hiking. While mental health is a common outcome focus of gender-affirming care research, our analysis suggests that top surgery’s impact on mental health may be more indirect. By improving aspects of health-related quality of life, such as body image, social support, and physical activity, surgery contributes to greater resilience, which may be more meaningful metrics than focusing solely on mental health outcomes. CONCLUSION: Overall, this study captures common expectations that TGD youth’s have for top surgery. Shared decision-making that incorporates these patient-important outcomes is essential for optimizing care and ensuring post-operative satisfaction. Future research should continue exploring the diverse experiences of TGD youth and develop patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture the full scope of top surgery’s impact.

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)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery Global OpenSame topicDiversity and Career in MedicineFrench-language works237,207