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":"113 ","pages":"0"},"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\":\"113 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"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}
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.