ArticleInternational journal of transgender health2026
Readiness assessments prior to gender affirming medical care: The processes and perspectives of Australian healthcare practitioners.
Article in International journal of transgender health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many trans, gender-diverse, and non-binary individuals are required to complete a comprehensive 'readiness assessment' prior to accessing gender affirming medical care. Concerns exist regarding the equity, purpose, and negative impacts of readiness assessments, as well as potential inconsistencies in how these assessments are conducted. Aims: We sought to understand Australian healthcare practitioners' (HCPs') (i) Methods: A mixed-methods approach was used. Fourteen HCPs completed an online survey exploring their understanding of, and processes for conducting, readiness assessments, with 10 going on to complete a 1:1 interview further exploring their beliefs regarding the purpose of, and concerns regarding, assessments. Results: Survey results demonstrated little consistency in (i) the content HCPs believed relevant to each assessment criterion as set out by the WPATH SoC and (ii) their processes in conducting assessments. Analysis of interviews generated three themes regarding the Discussion: This research is the first to explore Australian HCPs' processes and perspectives of readiness assessments, highlighting the inequities they recognize in mandatory assessments as well as the broad inconsistencies in how assessments are administered. Reconsideration of assessments as mandatory, improved tertiary education, as well as standardized guidelines, are indicated.
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.