Kira J Nightingale, Scott K Jelinek, Caleb Jones, Linda M Bevington, Kaja Darien, Alexander Ding, Andi Fu, Kevin Su, Linda S Kocent, Miriam D Langer, Nadia Dowshen
{"title":"Telehealth Versus In-Person Injection Instruction for Adolescents and Young Adults Initiating Gender-Affirming Testosterone Therapy.","authors":"Kira J Nightingale, Scott K Jelinek, Caleb Jones, Linda M Bevington, Kaja Darien, Alexander Ding, Andi Fu, Kevin Su, Linda S Kocent, Miriam D Langer, Nadia Dowshen","doi":"10.1089/trgh.2024.0130","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical acceptability of testosterone levels, time to treatment, and postinstruction questions/problems between in-person and telehealth injection teaching for adolescents and young adults (AYA) initiating gender-affirming testosterone therapy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical record data from a large pediatric gender health clinic. Patients who received subcutaneous testosterone prescriptions between March 15, 2018, and March 14, 2022, were included. The study compared patients receiving in-person versus telehealth injection teaching. Data were collected on demographics, testosterone levels at 3 and 6 months, time from prescription to treatment, and post-instruction contacts. Statistical analyses included <i>t</i>-tests, chi-square tests, logistic regression, linear regression, and zero-inflated negative binomial.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study included 278 patients, with 136 (48.9%) receiving in-person teaching and 142 (51.1%) receiving telehealth teaching. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Clinical effectiveness, indicated by testosterone levels at 3 and 6 months, revealed no significant difference between instruction methods (<i>p</i> = 0.768 and <i>p</i> = 0.350). Time to treatment initiation was comparable (in-person: 15.34 days; telehealth: 18.02 days), with no significant difference in adjusted analysis (<i>p</i> = 0.204). Post-instruction contacts were slightly higher in the telehealth group (2.87 vs. 2.42, <i>p</i> = 0.040), but injection-related questions were rare and similar between groups (<i>p</i> = 0.650).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Telehealth instruction for testosterone injection is as effective as in-person teaching methods for AYA initiating gender-affirming care. The findings support the continued use of telehealth to enhance access to gender-affirming care, particularly in light of its clinical efficacy and patient acceptability.</p>","PeriodicalId":94256,"journal":{"name":"Transgender health","volume":"10 4","pages":"325-333"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12434162/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transgender health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2024.0130","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical acceptability of testosterone levels, time to treatment, and postinstruction questions/problems between in-person and telehealth injection teaching for adolescents and young adults (AYA) initiating gender-affirming testosterone therapy.
Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using electronic medical record data from a large pediatric gender health clinic. Patients who received subcutaneous testosterone prescriptions between March 15, 2018, and March 14, 2022, were included. The study compared patients receiving in-person versus telehealth injection teaching. Data were collected on demographics, testosterone levels at 3 and 6 months, time from prescription to treatment, and post-instruction contacts. Statistical analyses included t-tests, chi-square tests, logistic regression, linear regression, and zero-inflated negative binomial.
Results: The study included 278 patients, with 136 (48.9%) receiving in-person teaching and 142 (51.1%) receiving telehealth teaching. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. Clinical effectiveness, indicated by testosterone levels at 3 and 6 months, revealed no significant difference between instruction methods (p = 0.768 and p = 0.350). Time to treatment initiation was comparable (in-person: 15.34 days; telehealth: 18.02 days), with no significant difference in adjusted analysis (p = 0.204). Post-instruction contacts were slightly higher in the telehealth group (2.87 vs. 2.42, p = 0.040), but injection-related questions were rare and similar between groups (p = 0.650).
Conclusion: Telehealth instruction for testosterone injection is as effective as in-person teaching methods for AYA initiating gender-affirming care. The findings support the continued use of telehealth to enhance access to gender-affirming care, particularly in light of its clinical efficacy and patient acceptability.