ArticleCureus2026
Assessment of Behavioral Health Readiness for Gender-Affirming Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Mental Health Provider Practices.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is associated with improved mental health and quality of life outcomes for transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals; however, access to GAS often requires preoperative behavioral health readiness evaluations, as outlined by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, which result in a letter of surgical readiness. Little is known about how mental health providers (MHPs) conduct preoperative readiness assessments in current practice. This cross-sectional study assessed how MHPs evaluate surgical readiness prior to GAS and examined differences in assessment approaches by provider training, experience, and gender identity. Methods A 25-question survey was developed by the research team and administered electronically using the Johns Hopkins University Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) platform. Eligible participants included MHPs in Maryland and the District of Columbia listed on Psychology Today who identified "transgender" as an area of competency. Responses were grouped by respondent training, evaluation volume, and gender identity. Assessment methods, prioritized psychosocial domains, and potential referral barriers were compared using Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests. The number of sessions and assessment outcomes between groups were compared with one-way analysis of variance. The survey was distributed to 462 unique email addresses and remained open for six weeks from October 14 to November 30, 2022. Results Of 462 MHPs, the response rate was 21% (n=97). Among respondents with complete data for both variables, MHPs who attended conferences to augment their training found more value in the letter-writing process compared to those who did not attend conferences (n=29/46 (63%) vs.
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.