ArticleTransgender health2026
Fertility Preservation for Gender Diverse Youth: Design and Evaluation of Patient-Centered eLearning Modules.
Article in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: We examined transgender and gender diverse (TGD) youths' learning needs regarding fertility preservation (FP). We developed patient-centered eLearning modules for TGD youth with ovaries or testes. We evaluated the modules' impact on knowledge and confidence in decision-making and youths' perceptions of the modules. Methods: Three-phase study (2022-2024) that involved pubertal 10-18-year-old TGD youth from a gender clinic. Phase 1 utilized a needs assessment (TGD youth), semistructured interviews (interprofessional gender care and fertility medicine providers), and community partner and patient-education expert input. In phase 2, eLearning modules were designed and piloted with youth and health care providers. Feedback (content, language, and length) informed revisions. Phase 3 involved completion of pre- and post-module questionnaires (20 TGD youth). Outcomes included youths' knowledge, confidence in decision-making regarding FP consultation, and module perceptions. Results: Phase 1: Of 21 youth (13 assigned female at birth [AFAB], 8 assigned male at birth [AMAB]), learning preferences were reading text (15/21), additional resources (14/21), photographs (7/21), and interactivity (6/21). Phase 2: Of 13 participants (7 youth, 6 providers), 12 reported content being clear. All reported acceptable and inclusive module language. Phase 3: 20 participants (14 AFAB and 6 AMAB) with mean age 15.6 ± 1.0 years. All felt more knowledgeable about FP and 16/20 reported greater decision-making confidence. Modules were reported as engaging/interactive (18/20), informative (18/20), with high overall satisfaction (19/20), and no negative responses. Conclusion: These eLearning tools addressed the lack of patient-centered education resources regarding FP for TGD youth and improved knowledge and confidence in decision-making. Dissemination of modules may promote education and improve FP-related decision-making.
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.