ArticleBMJ open quality2023
Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patient-reported outcomes, provider-reported outcomes, and physiologic parameters after gender-affirming hormone treatment in Canada: a systematic review.Hormones (Athens, Greece) · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Healthcare experiences of transgender and gender-diverse people in the UK: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
- Transforming Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement With Digital Health Technology.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Prioritizing Equity: A Call to Implement Freely Available and Accessible Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Paediatric Gender-Affirming Care.Paediatrics & child health · 2025Article
- Gender-affirming care education in pharmacy: a scoping review protocol of practices in Canada and the USA.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Optimizing Patient Engagement with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Across the Cancer Continuum: A Qualitative Study.Palliative medicine reports · 2025Article
- Shifting Paradigms: A Deep Dive Into Public Perceptions of Gender-affirming Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Patient-reported outcome measures for paediatric gender-affirming care: A systematic review.Paediatrics & child health · 2024Article
- Gender-affirming Chest Surgery: A Prospective Series of 155 Consecutive Cases of Double Incision Mastectomy.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Evaluating Access and Outcomes in Gender-affirming Breast Augmentation: A Comparative Study of a County Hospital and an Academic Center.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Exploring Decisional Conflict Experienced by Individuals Considering Metoidioplasty and Phalloplasty Gender-affirming Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- Implementing strategies to improve uptake of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: a mixed-methods implementation study.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Article
- Experiences and Perspectives of Transgender Individuals Accessing Gender-Affirming Care in Manitoba, Canada.Global qualitative nursing researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesPatient and healthcare professional perspectives are needed to develop a gender-affirming care patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation plan. We aimed to identify top considerations relevant to gender-affirming care PROM implementation from patient and healthcare professional perspectives. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND
participantsThis qualitative study conducted in the UK between January and April 2023 includes focus groups with a patient sample diverse in age and gender identity, and a healthcare professional sample diverse in age and role. Established methods in implementation science and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to create interview guides, and analyse data. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers. Patient and healthcare professional focus groups were conducted separately. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on PROM implementation were explored through focus groups and until data saturation.
resultsA total of 7 virtual focus groups were conducted with 24 participants (14 patients, mean (SD) age, 43 (14.5); 10 healthcare professionals, mean (SD) age, 46 (11.3)). From patient perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were mistrust with PROMs, lack of accessibility, burden, and lack of communication on why PROMs are important and how they will help care. From healthcare professional perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were lack of accessibility, burden with PROM administration and scoring, costs of implementation (financial and time), and lack of communication on what PROMs are and how they benefit service provision.
conclusionGender-affirming care PROM implementation must address: patient mistrust with PROMs, accessibility, communication on what PROMs are and how they can be used, reducing burden, and hybridised implementation. These factors may also be applicable to other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.