15. Asking About Gender Identity in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology Clinic: Patient, Family and Provider Perspectives (The REFLECTIVE Study).

Abstract

Background

The provision of medical and psychosocial supports requires the identification of gender diverse individuals in health care settings. However, in primary care settings, some adolescents and parents expressed that gender identity screening (GIS) was offensive and clinicians expressed that GIS negatively affected their workflow. We sought to assess the acceptability and feasibility of GIS in Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology (PAG) clinics of a large tertiary care children's hospital in the United States (US) Midwest.

Methods

A GIS survey developed in the US West Coast was modified with permission. After IRB approval, the anonymous single-site cross-sectional survey was administered to patients ages 12-25 years (AYA), parents of the 12-to-17-year-olds, and healthcare providers (HCPs) in our PAG clinics from July through September 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 29 (IBM Corp, Armonk, NY). Categorical variables were compared using the Chi-Square test /Fishers’ exact test or the Kruskal-Wallis test as appropriate. Continuous variables were compared using the ANOVA test. Statistical significance was defined as P <.05.

Results

Fifty-six participants completed the survey (Table1). The majority were 12-to17-year-olds (27, 48.2%) and their parents (16, 28.6%). The mean (SD) age of 12-to-17-year-olds, 18-to-25-years-olds, parents of 12-to-17-year-olds, and healthcare providers (HCPs) was 14.9 (1.6), 18.4 (.79), 46.8 (15.4), and 46.8 (15.4) years, respectively. Most AYA did not find GIS confusing, uncomfortable, or offensive (Table 2). An equal number of parents did/did not want parental permission prior to GIS screening for their children. Although more parents than HCPs preferred informing parents about the content of GIS before AYA were asked questions, the difference was not significant (10, 62.5% vs. 2, 33.3%, p=.348). Most 18-to-25-years-olds (4, 57.1%), parents of 12-to-17-year-olds (12, 75%), and HCPs (6, 100%) did not think that GIS should be performed in front of parents as compared to only 9 (33.3%) of 12-to-17-year-olds (p=.005). There was a statistically significant difference between the preferred method of GIS with 16 (80%) of 12-to-17-year-olds and 6 (100%) of HCPs preferring direct communication between patient and provider as compared to most 18-to-25-years-olds (5, 71.4%) who preferred to enter GIS on a computer or tablet (p=.008). HCPs did not think that GIS affected their workflow.

Conclusions

AYA have differing preferences for the method of GIS in PAG clinics which HCPs should take into consideration.