Loading...

212 posters, 10 topics, 5 sessions, 754 authors, 237 institutions

ePostersLive by SciGen Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.

The AAPS 101st Annual Meeting

29 April – 2 May, 2023 | Chicago, IL

The AAPS 101st Annual Meeting banner

D151

The Gender-Q: A Rigorous, Modular, Patient-reported Outcome Measure For Gender-affirming Care

Part of Topic

Gender Affirmation

The Gender-Q: A PROM for Teens and Adults Seeking Gender Affirming Care

1Kaur MN, 2Morrison SD, 3Deibert S, 4Van De Grit TC, 5Højgaard A, 6Jacobsen AL, 1Johnson N, 4Mullender MG, 6Poulsen L, 7Satterwhite T, 8Santucci R, 9Semple J, 3Rae C, 10Sarvard K, 6Sørensen JA, 11Young-Afat D, 1Pusic AL, 3Klassen AF

 

1Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, US; 2University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, US; 3McMaster University, Hamilton, CA; 4University Medical Center, Amsterdam, NL; 5Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, DK; 6University of Southern Denmark and Odense University Hospital, Odense, DK; 7Align Surgical Associates, San Francisco, US; 8Crane Center, Austin, US; 9University of Toronto, Toronto, CA; 10Fleming College –Emeritus, Noelville, CA; 11Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, NL

Background

•Gender-affirming care is defined as surgical and non-surgical treatments that aim to align an individual’s body with their gender identity. [1]
•Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires that assess how patients feel and function and help us measure outcomes that matter to patients.
•Four systematic reviews of PROMs in gender-affirming surgery have concordantly identified a lack of comprehensive, rigorously developed and validated PROMs specific to gender-affirming care. [2-5]
•A gender-affirming care-specific PROM is crucial to understanding the health-related quality of life (HRQL) impact of treatments and interventions from the patient perspective and conducting clinical effectiveness research. 
 
Objective
•Develop a methodologically rigorous, globally applicable, patient-driven PROM that measures what matters to individuals seeking gender-affirming care – called the GENDER-Q.
 
Methods
•Internationally established guidelines for PROM development were used to develop the GENDER-Q. (See [6] for Protocol)
•Sample: Individuals (16 years or older) seeking or receiving gender-affirming care were recruited from high-volume clinics in the United States, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands.
 
Results

STEP 1: COGNITIVE INTERVIEWS (n=21)

•Most respondents were White (76%), 30-39 years old (43%), transfeminine (50%), college-educated (57%), and from the U.S. (76%)
•95 items were found to be relevant from BREAST-Q, BODY-Q and FACE-Q, and included in the GENDER-Q.
 

STEP 2: QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS (n=84)

•Most respondents were White (63%), 20-29 years old (27%), transmasculine (50%), college-educated (43%), and from the U.S. (37%).
•Most participants sought masculinizing procedures (56%).
•An item pool and preliminary scales were developed.
 

STEP 4: PILOT FIELD TESTS (n=601, 30 countries)

ACCEPTABILITY OF THE GENDER-Q

•Most found GENDER-Q to be understandable, thorough, respectful, and safe (Table 1).
 
Conclusions
•The final field test version of GENDER-Q comprises 53 independently functioning scales across 4 main domains (Figure 2).
•The GENDER-Q is highly responsive to calls for a rigorous, validated, gender-affirming, care-specific PROM by clinical and academic communities.
•GENDER-Q was developed using extensive input from TGD people and clinician experts.
•It represents the most comprehensive set of independently functioning scales that are available to date for assessing outcomes of gender-affirming care.

 Next Steps

•An international, multi-site field test is ongoing. Once developed, the GENDER-Q will be made available for use in clinical and academic research at no charge for not-for-profit use.
 
Key References
1.Coleman, E., et al. International Journal of Transgender Health 23.sup1 (2022): S1-S259.
2.Dy, Geolani W., et al. Translational Andrology and Urology 8.3 (2019): 228.
3.Andréasson, My, et al. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 141.4 (2018): 1026-1039

4.        Barone, M., et al. Aesthetic plastic surgery 41 (2017): 700-713.

5.        Oles, Norah, et al. Annals of surgery 275.1 (2022): e52-e74.

6.         Klassen, Anne F., et al. BMJ open 8.10 (2018): e025435.

 

The AAPS 101st Annual Meeting » banner
Copyright © 2015-2026, ePostersLive® SciGen is a registered trademark of SciGen Technologies S.A. Patent pending.

This website and third-party tools we use rely on cookies for the best user experience. By selecting "I agree", you agree to cookie usage as described in our Privacy Policy.