顺式规范调查是否足以评估变性男性在接受生殖器性别确认手术后的性幸福感?

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY Sexual medicine reviews Pub Date : 2024-04-23 DOI:10.1093/sxmrev/qeae023
Matthew Loria, C. Van Dorn, A. Bobrow, Aishwarya Gautam, E. Fraiman, Megan Mcnamara, Shubham Gupta, Kirtishri Mishra
{"title":"顺式规范调查是否足以评估变性男性在接受生殖器性别确认手术后的性幸福感?","authors":"Matthew Loria, C. Van Dorn, A. Bobrow, Aishwarya Gautam, E. Fraiman, Megan Mcnamara, Shubham Gupta, Kirtishri Mishra","doi":"10.1093/sxmrev/qeae023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\nFor transmasculine spectrum individuals, there is a lack of validated surveys to assess sexual well-being (SWB) post-genital gender-affirming surgery. Currently, either providers are designing their own SWB surveys or surveys designed for cisgender men are being used.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nThis study investigated the applicability of SWB surveys validated for cisgender men to transmasculine spectrum individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX). Recognizing the paucity of validated tools for assessing SWB in transmasculine individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX), we evaluated current surveys for their inclusiveness and relevance to this population.\n\n\nMETHODS\nOur methodology involved analyzing surveys validated in English-speaking North American cisgender men. We conducted a systematic review, yielding 31 surveys, out of which 12 met our inclusion criteria. These were then assessed against the 10 domains of holistic SWB as identified by Özer et al. Each survey was scored based on its reflection of these domains, thus generating an SWB score. Additionally, we performed a thematic analysis to identify areas needing modification for better applicability to TMSX.\n\n\nRESULTS\nOur findings indicate an average SWB score of 5.17 out of 10 across the surveys. The surveys predominantly addressed sexual function, with a marked underrepresentation of domains like quality of life, sexuality, and sexual pleasure. This underscores the tendency of these surveys to focus more on the biological mechanisms of sex, rather than on a nuanced biopsychosocial understanding. Thematic analysis revealed significant gaps, such as the irrelevance of questions about erections and ejaculations for TMSX, and the need for greater emphasis on psychosocial factors.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nGiven these gaps and the inadequacy of most cisnormative surveys, we recommend the creation of a novel, validated SWB survey specifically for TMSX. This should be developed in collaboration with a multidisciplinary panel and TMSX community advisory board, ensuring a tool that truly reflects the unique SWB needs of this population.","PeriodicalId":21813,"journal":{"name":"Sexual medicine reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are cisnormative surveys adequate to assess sexual well-being in trans men post-genital gender-affirming surgery?\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Loria, C. Van Dorn, A. Bobrow, Aishwarya Gautam, E. Fraiman, Megan Mcnamara, Shubham Gupta, Kirtishri Mishra\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/sxmrev/qeae023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"INTRODUCTION\\nFor transmasculine spectrum individuals, there is a lack of validated surveys to assess sexual well-being (SWB) post-genital gender-affirming surgery. Currently, either providers are designing their own SWB surveys or surveys designed for cisgender men are being used.\\n\\n\\nOBJECTIVE\\nThis study investigated the applicability of SWB surveys validated for cisgender men to transmasculine spectrum individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX). Recognizing the paucity of validated tools for assessing SWB in transmasculine individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX), we evaluated current surveys for their inclusiveness and relevance to this population.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nOur methodology involved analyzing surveys validated in English-speaking North American cisgender men. We conducted a systematic review, yielding 31 surveys, out of which 12 met our inclusion criteria. These were then assessed against the 10 domains of holistic SWB as identified by Özer et al. Each survey was scored based on its reflection of these domains, thus generating an SWB score. Additionally, we performed a thematic analysis to identify areas needing modification for better applicability to TMSX.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nOur findings indicate an average SWB score of 5.17 out of 10 across the surveys. The surveys predominantly addressed sexual function, with a marked underrepresentation of domains like quality of life, sexuality, and sexual pleasure. This underscores the tendency of these surveys to focus more on the biological mechanisms of sex, rather than on a nuanced biopsychosocial understanding. Thematic analysis revealed significant gaps, such as the irrelevance of questions about erections and ejaculations for TMSX, and the need for greater emphasis on psychosocial factors.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nGiven these gaps and the inadequacy of most cisnormative surveys, we recommend the creation of a novel, validated SWB survey specifically for TMSX. This should be developed in collaboration with a multidisciplinary panel and TMSX community advisory board, ensuring a tool that truly reflects the unique SWB needs of this population.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sexual medicine reviews\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sexual medicine reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/sxmrev/qeae023\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sexual medicine reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sxmrev/qeae023","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言 对于跨性别谱系的人来说,目前还缺乏有效的调查来评估生殖器性别确认手术后的性幸福感(SWB)。目前,要么是医疗服务提供者自行设计性健康调查表,要么是使用为顺性男性设计的调查表。目的:本研究调查了为顺性男性设计的性健康调查表是否适用于生殖器性别确认手术(TMSX)后的变性人。我们认识到用于评估生殖器性别确认手术(TMSX)后跨男性化人群 SWB 的有效工具很少,因此我们评估了当前调查的包容性和与该人群的相关性。我们对 31 项调查进行了系统回顾,其中 12 项符合我们的纳入标准。然后,我们根据 Özer 等人确定的整体 SWB 的 10 个领域对这些调查进行了评估。每项调查都根据其在这些领域的反映情况进行评分,从而得出 SWB 分数。此外,我们还进行了主题分析,以确定需要修改的领域,从而更好地适用于 TMSX。结果我们的研究结果表明,所有调查的 SWB 平均分为 5.17 分(满分为 10 分)。调查主要涉及性功能,生活质量、性能力和性快感等领域的调查明显不足。这说明这些调查倾向于更多地关注性的生物机制,而不是细致入微的生物-心理-社会理解。专题分析揭示了一些重大差距,例如有关勃起和射精的问题与 TMSX 无关,以及需要更加重视社会心理因素。该调查应与多学科小组和 TMSX 社区咨询委员会合作开发,以确保调查工具能真正反映该人群独特的 SWB 需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Are cisnormative surveys adequate to assess sexual well-being in trans men post-genital gender-affirming surgery?
INTRODUCTION For transmasculine spectrum individuals, there is a lack of validated surveys to assess sexual well-being (SWB) post-genital gender-affirming surgery. Currently, either providers are designing their own SWB surveys or surveys designed for cisgender men are being used. OBJECTIVE This study investigated the applicability of SWB surveys validated for cisgender men to transmasculine spectrum individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX). Recognizing the paucity of validated tools for assessing SWB in transmasculine individuals post-genital gender-affirming surgery (TMSX), we evaluated current surveys for their inclusiveness and relevance to this population. METHODS Our methodology involved analyzing surveys validated in English-speaking North American cisgender men. We conducted a systematic review, yielding 31 surveys, out of which 12 met our inclusion criteria. These were then assessed against the 10 domains of holistic SWB as identified by Özer et al. Each survey was scored based on its reflection of these domains, thus generating an SWB score. Additionally, we performed a thematic analysis to identify areas needing modification for better applicability to TMSX. RESULTS Our findings indicate an average SWB score of 5.17 out of 10 across the surveys. The surveys predominantly addressed sexual function, with a marked underrepresentation of domains like quality of life, sexuality, and sexual pleasure. This underscores the tendency of these surveys to focus more on the biological mechanisms of sex, rather than on a nuanced biopsychosocial understanding. Thematic analysis revealed significant gaps, such as the irrelevance of questions about erections and ejaculations for TMSX, and the need for greater emphasis on psychosocial factors. CONCLUSION Given these gaps and the inadequacy of most cisnormative surveys, we recommend the creation of a novel, validated SWB survey specifically for TMSX. This should be developed in collaboration with a multidisciplinary panel and TMSX community advisory board, ensuring a tool that truly reflects the unique SWB needs of this population.
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
Sexual medicine reviews
Sexual medicine reviews UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
5
期刊最新文献
Is sexual function impaired in patients with primary headaches? A systematic review of observational studies. Erectile dysfunction as a holistic indicator of well-being: a narrative review. Analysis of evidence on nutraceutical interventions for Peyronie's disease: a guideline-based critical review. Sexual well-being among partnered adults and couples over 60: a scoping review. Beyond the discomfort: understanding and managing sexual pain in women, a comprehensive case-based discussion.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1