Assessing the health-related management of people with differences of sex development

Beyond Race, Sex, and Gender: Mental Health Considerations of Transgender Youth of Color, Intersex Youth, and Nonbinary Youth

This article explores how race, sex, and gender are better thought of as a continuum rather than binary categories. Starting with a discussion of intersectionality, we examine the importance of ethnic-racial identity and explore unique cultural considerations for working with Black, Latinx, and AAPI transgender and nonbinary youth. We then examine intersex youth and variations of sex development, as well as specific challenges they face. Finally, we explore nonbinary gender identities and the importance of individually tailoring affirming interventions. For all sections, we highlight the strengths and resilience of the youth and offer clinical recommendations for child and adolescent providers.

Cohort profile: pathways to care among people with disorders of sex development (DSD)

PURPOSE

The 'DSD Pathways' study was initiated to assess health status and patterns of care among people enrolled in large integrated healthcare systems and diagnosed with conditions comprising the broad category of disorders (differences) of sex development (DSD). The objectives of this communication are to describe methods of cohort ascertainment for two specific DSD conditions-classic congenital adrenal hyperplasia with 46,XX karyotype (46,XX CAH) and complete androgen insensitivity syndrome (CAIS).

PARTICIPANTS

Using electronic health records we developed an algorithm that combined diagnostic codes, clinical notes, laboratory data and pharmacy records to assign each cohort candidate a 'strength-of-evidence' score supporting the diagnosis of interest. A sample of cohort candidates underwent a review of the full medical record to determine the score cutoffs for final cohort validation.

FINDINGS TO DATE

Among 5404 classic 46,XX CAH cohort candidates the strength-of-evidence scores ranged between 0 and 10. Based on sample validation, the eligibility cut-off for full review was set at the strength-of-evidence score of ≥7 among children under the age of 8 years and ≥8 among older cohort candidates. The final validation of all cohort candidates who met the cut-off criteria identified 115 persons with classic 46,XX CAH. The strength-of-evidence scores among 648 CAIS cohort candidates ranged from 2 to 10. There were no confirmed CAIS cases among cohort candidates with scores <6. The in-depth medical record review for candidates with scores ≥6 identified 61 confirmed cases of CAIS.

FUTURE PLANS

As the first cohort of this type, the DSD Pathways study is well-positioned to fill existing knowledge gaps related to management and outcomes in this heterogeneous population. Analyses will examine diagnostic and referral patterns, adherence to care recommendations and physical and mental health morbidities examined through comparisons of DSD and reference populations and analyses of health status across DSD categories.

"Good practices" in pediatric clinical care for disorders/differences of sex development

PURPOSE

To define, benchmark, and publicize elements of quality care (i.e., "good practices") for pediatric patients with disorders/differences of sex development (DSD).

METHODS

Principles of quality care were identified by literature review; consensus exists for 11 good practices and adherence was evaluated through online survey of 21 North American clinical sites.

RESULTS

Strong uptake was observed for many practices, particularly specialty participation (n ≥ 17 of 21 sites for most core specialties); point of contact (n = 18); expertise in gender dysphoria/dissatisfaction (n = 20); and DSD-specific continuing medical education (n = 18). Greater variability was apparent for frequency of peer support referrals (n = 12 universally practiced); standardized questionnaires for routine assessment of psychosocial adaptation (n = 13) and gender development (n = 10); consistently clarifying patient/family values in decision-making (n = 15); genital exam protocols that exclude trainee education as primary reason (n = 15); and internal patient-tracking efforts (n = 5-10 of 20 sites).

CONCLUSION

This study employed a novel approach to designate DSD good practices and identified areas of consistency and variation in these DSD clinical practices. Good practice benchmarking facilitates quality assessment within and across sites, promotes continuous improvement, and empowers stakeholders in locating and delivering high quality care.