Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35891940›Full record

ArticleJournal of health monitoring2022

Survey of sex/gender diversity in the GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS study - objectives, procedure and experiences.

Kathleen Pöge, Alexander Rommel, Anne Starker, Franziska Prütz, Katharina Tolksdorf, Ilter Öztürk, Sarah Strasser, Sabine Born, Anke-Christine Saß

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of health monitoring, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Gender-affirming hormone therapy: state of the art].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Transgender and gender-diverse autistic adolescents are at elevated risk of depression.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Self-reported height and weight: timeliness and source of the participant information.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. [DIVERGesTOOL-development of a toolbox for the assessment of sex/gender diversity].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kathleen PögeRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Infectious Disease Epidemiology.
Alexander RommelRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Anne StarkerRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Franziska PrützRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Katharina TolksdorfRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Ilter ÖztürkRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Sarah StrasserRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Sabine BornRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Anke-Christine SaßRobert Koch Institute, Berlin, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring.
Robert Koch Institute · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sex/gender diversity is increasingly recognised by society and should be taken into account more in population-representative studies, as they are important data sources for targeting health promotion, prevention and care. In 2019, the Robert Koch Institute started a population-representative health survey with the study Health in Germany Update (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS) with a modified, two-stage measures of sex/gender. The survey covered sex registered at birth and gender identity with an open response option. This article describes the aims, the procedure and the experiences with the operationalisation of sex/gender and the results. Out of 23,001 respondents, 22,826 persons are classified as cisgender, 113 persons as transgender and 29 persons as gender-diverse. 33 respondents were counted as having missing values. A survey of interviewers showed that the two-stage measures of sex/gender had a high level of acceptance overall and that there were only a few interview drop-outs. On the basis of previous experience, the modified query can be used for further surveys, but should also be adapted in perspective. For this purpose, participatory studies are desirable that focus on how the acceptance of measures of sex/gender can be further improved and how hurtful experiences in the context of the questions asked can be avoided.

Indexed as

GEDA/EHISGENDER IDENTITYHEALTH MONITORINGSEX/GENDER DIVERSITY

Identifiers

PMID35891940
PMCPMC9275517
OpenAlexW4288207385

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.