MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410079935 · doi:10.1089/trgh.2024.0168

Fertility Preservation for Gender Diverse Youth: Design and Evaluation of Patient-Centered eLearning Modules

2025· article· en· W4410079935 on OpenAlexaff
Joshua R. Stanley, Julia Sorbara, Mark R. Palmert

Bibliographic record

VenueTransgender Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFertilityFertility preservationPsychologySociologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: We examined transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youths' learning needs regarding fertility preservation (FP). We developed patient-centered eLearning modules for TGD youth with ovaries or testes. We evaluated the modules' impact on knowledge and confidence in decision-making and youths' perceptions of the modules. Methods: Three-phase study (2022-2024) that involved pubertal 10-18-year-old TGD youth from a gender clinic. Phase 1 utilized a needs assessment (TGD youth), semistructured interviews (interprofessional gender care and fertility medicine providers), and community partner and patient-education expert input. In phase 2, eLearning modules were designed and piloted with youth and health care providers. Feedback (content, language, and length) informed revisions. Phase 3 involved completion of pre- and post-module questionnaires (20 TGD youth). Outcomes included youths' knowledge, confidence in decision-making regarding FP consultation, and module perceptions. Results: Phase 1: Of 21 youth (13 assigned female at birth [AFAB], 8 assigned male at birth [AMAB]), learning preferences were reading text (15/21), additional resources (14/21), photographs (7/21), and interactivity (6/21). Phase 2: Of 13 participants (7 youth, 6 providers), 12 reported content being clear. All reported acceptable and inclusive module language. Phase 3: 20 participants (14 AFAB and 6 AMAB) with mean age 15.6 ± 1.0 years. All felt more knowledgeable about FP and 16/20 reported greater decision-making confidence. Modules were reported as engaging/interactive (18/20), informative (18/20), with high overall satisfaction (19/20), and no negative responses. Conclusion: These eLearning tools addressed the lack of patient-centered education resources regarding FP for TGD youth and improved knowledge and confidence in decision-making. Dissemination of modules may promote education and improve FP-related decision-making.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.321
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.128 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransgender HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207