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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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 (12 assigned female at birth [AFAB], 9 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. 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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.722
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.321
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