[Gender affirmation female to male-metaidoioplasty]

Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing urinary dysfunction following gender-affirming genital surgery: A narrative review of the literature

INTRODUCTION

Gender-affirming genital surgery is one of several surgical procedures available to transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals to improve congruence between their gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Despite increasing utilization of these procedures, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess subjective outcomes following gender-affirming genital surgery remain limited. Our aim was to provide a synopsis of PROMs currently being used to evaluate urinary outcomes among TGNB patients following gender-affirming genital surgery and to assess each PROM for content that is relevant to TGNB patients.

METHODS

A multidatabase search was performed (Embase and PubMed) using search terms that included transgender, patient-reported outcome measures, questionnaire, and gender-affirming surgery. Studies that assessed subjective outcomes related to urinary outcomes and pelvic floor dysfunction following gender-affirming genital surgery were reviewed. Gender-affirming genital surgery included vaginal reconstruction (vaginoplasty) and penile reconstruction (phalloplasty and metoidioplasty). Included studies were evaluated for relevant content items and summarized in table.

RESULTS

Our literature search identified 820 unique articles. Twenty-seven full articles were included in the final review. Until recently, measurement tools have been limited to unvalidated ad hoc questionnaires or PROMs developed for other conditions, such as urinary incontinence or vaginal prolapse, that are validated among the predominantly cisgender general population. Of the selected studies, PROMs used to evaluate urinary and pelvic floor dysfunction following gender-affirming genital surgery included self-construced ad hoc questionnaires (10 studies), Amsterdam Overactive Pelvic Floor Scale (four studies), King's Health Questionnaire (two studies), Pelvic Floor Distress Inventory (PFDI)-20 (two studies), Sheffield Pelvic Organ Prolapse (one study), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence (ICIQ-UI) (one study), and ICIQ-Female Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (one study). The PFDI-20 asked about the most relevant symptoms to TGNB patients following genital surgery; however, not all cisgender validated questionnaires included important questions about voiding position, splayed or misdirected stream. The Affirming Surgery Form and Function Individual Reporting Measure (AFFIRM) questionnaire is the first PROM for assessing subjective urinary outcomes that are validated for TGNB individuals, and the GENDER-Q is a promising new PROM with the aim of evaluating outcomes following surgical and other gender-affirming treatments.

CONCLUSION

Despite recent advancements, a need remains for standardized assessment tools to evaluate pelvic floor dysfunction and urinary symptoms following gender-affirming genital surgery. Questionnaires developed for the general population to assess symptoms of pelvic organ prolapse and other urinary dysfunction do not fully capture the experiences unique to TGNB individuals undergoing this type of surgery. Nonetheless, PROMs validated specifically for TGNB individuals are necessary to more accurately evaluate outcomes of gender-affirming genital surgery, allow for informed patient counseling, and create evidence-based changes to improve these interventions.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Gender-Affirming Care Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Importance

Gender-affirming care is a key clinical area that can benefit from implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Identifying barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation is needed to develop an evidence-based implementation strategy.

Objective

To identify (1) PROMs previously implemented for gender-affirming care and constructs measured, (2) how patients completed PROMs and how results were reported and used, and (3) barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation.

Evidence Review

In this systematic review, PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 25, 2021, and updated on December 16, 2022. Gray literature was searched through gray literature database, online search engine, and targeted website searching. Inclusion criteria were (1) original articles of (2) a formally developed PROM or ad hoc instrument administered for gender-affirming care to (3) patients accessing gender-affirming care. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool was used to evaluate quality of included studies. This review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021233080).

Findings

In total, 286 studies were included, representing 85 395 transgender and nonbinary patients from more than 30 countries. A total of 205 different PROMs were used in gender-affirming care. No studies described using an implementation science theory, model, or framework to support PROM deployment. Key barriers to PROM implementation included issues with evidence strength and quality of the PROM, engaging participants, and PROM complexity. Key enablers of PROM implementation included using PROMs validated for gender-affirming care, implementing PROMs able to be deployed online or in person, implementing PROMs that are shorter and reduce patient burden, engaging key stakeholders and participants as part of developing an implementation plan, and organizational climate.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review of barriers to and enablers of PROM implementation in gender-affirming care, PROM implementation was inconsistent and did not follow evidence-based approaches in implementation science. There was also a lack of patient input in creating implementation strategies, suggesting a need for patient-centered approaches to PROM implementation. Frameworks created from these results can be used to develop evidence-based PROM implementation initiatives for gender-affirming care and have potential generalizability for other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.