ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- HOPE for Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (hEDS) and Hypermobility Spectrum Disorder (HSD)-A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial of Feasibility, Acceptability and Appropriateness.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2025Trial
- Formative evaluation of PREPARE for Autistic Adults: An adult autism training for resident physicians designed with autistic adults and family members.Autism in adulthood · 2025Article
- Standardization of labor induction management: A mixed-methods evaluation of the clinician perspective.Pregnancy (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- 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
- A Refinement Technique to Conceal the Scar Along the Labia Majora in Gender-affirming Vaginoplasty.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- 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
- A cross-sectional assessment of expanding basic healthcare services to rural and underserved communities through proprietary patent medicine vendors in Northern Nigeria.PLOS global public health · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveAssess acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Practical Guide to Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) from a sample of patients and healthcare professionals.
designCross-sectional study conducted August-October 2023.
settingParticipants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic.
participantsPatient participants seeking care and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. The PG-PROM-GAC was sent to participants via email for review. OUTCOME MEASURES: Three validated tools to measure acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility were administered: the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). The percentage of participants indicating agreement or disagreement with items on the AIM, IAM and FIM was calculated.
resultsA total of 132 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients (mean age, SD: 33, 14) and 13 gender-affirming healthcare professionals (mean age, SD: 43, 11) completed the AIM, IAM and FIM, representing a range of gender identities. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the patient-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 50% for each item. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 20% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the healthcare professional-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 38% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 15% for each item.
conclusionsGender-affirming healthcare professionals and TGD patients find the PG-PROM-GAC acceptable, appropriate and feasible. The PG-PROM-GAC is ready-to-use for clinicians, policy-makers and researchers committed to service improvement for gender-affirming care.
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.