临床医生报告在为非二元性别变性青年提供医疗护理时不那么舒适

IF 2 4区 医学 Q1 Social Sciences
Abby Walch, Janet Y. Lee, Jenise C. Wong, Madeline Deutsch, Diane Ehrensaft, Megumi Okumura, Stephen M. Rosenthal
{"title":"临床医生报告在为非二元性别变性青年提供医疗护理时不那么舒适","authors":"Abby Walch, Janet Y. Lee, Jenise C. Wong, Madeline Deutsch, Diane Ehrensaft, Megumi Okumura, Stephen M. Rosenthal","doi":"10.1089/trgh.2023.0029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinician comfort differs in the provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth with binary versus nonbinary gender identities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to three international health professional electronic mailing lists. Comfort providing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) to nonbinary and binary TGD youth was assessed using 5-point Likert scales and analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Logistic regression modeling comfort providing GnRHa and GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth was performed to identify relevant predictors. Results: Fifty-five respondents completed the survey. Respondents reported more comfort providing both GnRHa therapy and GAHT to binary compared to nonbinary TGD youth. In univariate analyses, being in a pediatric endocrinology specialty and work within a multidisciplinary clinic setting were associated with less comfort providing GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth. Non-straight/non-heterosexual sexual orientation, being in a general pediatrics specialty, and higher estimated percentage of nonbinary TGD youth cared for in clinical practice were associated with more comfort. Only nonstraight/nonheterosexual sexual orientation maintained significance after adjusting for potential confounders in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Clinicians are less comfortable providing gender-affirming medical care to nonbinary versus binary TGD youth. Efforts to decrease barriers and to inform development of clinical practice guidelines inclusive of nonbinary TGD youth are needed.","PeriodicalId":37265,"journal":{"name":"Transgender Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinicians Report Less Comfort in Provision of Medical Care to Nonbinary Transgender Youth\",\"authors\":\"Abby Walch, Janet Y. Lee, Jenise C. Wong, Madeline Deutsch, Diane Ehrensaft, Megumi Okumura, Stephen M. Rosenthal\",\"doi\":\"10.1089/trgh.2023.0029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinician comfort differs in the provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth with binary versus nonbinary gender identities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to three international health professional electronic mailing lists. Comfort providing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) to nonbinary and binary TGD youth was assessed using 5-point Likert scales and analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Logistic regression modeling comfort providing GnRHa and GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth was performed to identify relevant predictors. Results: Fifty-five respondents completed the survey. Respondents reported more comfort providing both GnRHa therapy and GAHT to binary compared to nonbinary TGD youth. In univariate analyses, being in a pediatric endocrinology specialty and work within a multidisciplinary clinic setting were associated with less comfort providing GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth. Non-straight/non-heterosexual sexual orientation, being in a general pediatrics specialty, and higher estimated percentage of nonbinary TGD youth cared for in clinical practice were associated with more comfort. Only nonstraight/nonheterosexual sexual orientation maintained significance after adjusting for potential confounders in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Clinicians are less comfortable providing gender-affirming medical care to nonbinary versus binary TGD youth. Efforts to decrease barriers and to inform development of clinical practice guidelines inclusive of nonbinary TGD youth are needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transgender Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transgender Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2023.0029\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transgender Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/trgh.2023.0029","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是确定临床医生在向具有二元性别认同和非二元性别认同的跨性别和性别多样化(TGD)青年提供性别肯定医疗服务时的舒适度是否不同。方法:对三个国际卫生专业人员电子邮件列表进行横断面调查。使用5点Likert量表评估非二元和二元TGD青年提供促性腺激素释放激素激动剂(GnRHa)和性别确认激素治疗(GAHT)的舒适度,并使用Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行分析。采用Logistic回归模型,将GnRHa和GAHT与非二元TGD青年进行比较,以确定相关预测因素。结果:55名受访者完成了调查。受访者表示,与非二元TGD青年相比,提供GnRHa治疗和GAHT治疗对二元TGD青年更舒适。在单变量分析中,在儿科内分泌学专业和多学科临床环境中工作,与二元TGD青少年相比,为非二元TGD青少年提供GAHT的舒适度较低。非直/非异性性取向,在普通儿科专业,以及在临床实践中被照顾的非二元TGD青少年的估计百分比较高与更舒适相关。在多变量分析中调整了潜在的混杂因素后,只有非异性恋/非异性恋性取向保持显著性。结论:临床医生不太愿意为非二元性和二元性TGD青年提供性别确认医疗服务。需要努力减少障碍,并告知包括非二元TGD青年在内的临床实践指南的发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinicians Report Less Comfort in Provision of Medical Care to Nonbinary Transgender Youth
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether clinician comfort differs in the provision of gender-affirming medical care to transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youth with binary versus nonbinary gender identities. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was distributed to three international health professional electronic mailing lists. Comfort providing gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT) to nonbinary and binary TGD youth was assessed using 5-point Likert scales and analyzed with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Logistic regression modeling comfort providing GnRHa and GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth was performed to identify relevant predictors. Results: Fifty-five respondents completed the survey. Respondents reported more comfort providing both GnRHa therapy and GAHT to binary compared to nonbinary TGD youth. In univariate analyses, being in a pediatric endocrinology specialty and work within a multidisciplinary clinic setting were associated with less comfort providing GAHT to nonbinary compared to binary TGD youth. Non-straight/non-heterosexual sexual orientation, being in a general pediatrics specialty, and higher estimated percentage of nonbinary TGD youth cared for in clinical practice were associated with more comfort. Only nonstraight/nonheterosexual sexual orientation maintained significance after adjusting for potential confounders in multivariate analyses. Conclusions: Clinicians are less comfortable providing gender-affirming medical care to nonbinary versus binary TGD youth. Efforts to decrease barriers and to inform development of clinical practice guidelines inclusive of nonbinary TGD youth are needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transgender Health
Transgender Health Social Sciences-Gender Studies
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
122
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信