A systematic review of decision aids for gender affirming therapy

• Published in: Translational andrology and urology 2021-06, Vol.10 (6), p.2574-2582
• Main Authors: Scalia, Peter, Tighe, Katherine M, Elwyn, Glyn, Bagley, Pamela J, Blunt, Heather B, Boh, Benjamin, Walters, Oakland C, Moses, Rachel A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Review on Controversies and Considerations of Penile Surgery
• ISSN: 2223-4691; 2223-4683; 2223-4691
• DOI: 10.21037/tau-20-1000

Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) persons considering gender affirming therapy have to make many complex medical decisions, potentially without understanding the associated harms or benefits of hormonal and surgical interventions. Further, clinicians are often unaware of how best to communicate information to persons seeking gender affirming therapy. Patient decision aids have been developed to provide evidence-based information as a way to help people make decisions in collaboration with their clinicians. It is unclear whether such tools exist for persons seeking gender affirming therapy. The objective of our systematic review is to search for and determine the quality of any existing patient decision aids developed for TGD persons considering gender affirming therapy, and the outcomes associated with their use. We adapted a search strategy for databases using two key concepts "decision support intervention/patient decision aid" and "transgender". We also conducted a brief online search of Google and abstracts from relevant conferences to identify any tools not published in the academic literature. Following study selection and data extraction, we used the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument (IPDASi) to assess the quality of patient decision aids, and the Standards for UNiversal reporting of patient Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) checklist to assess the quality of evaluations. We identified 762 studies; none were identified from Google or conference content. One tool met our inclusion criteria: an online, pre-encounter patient decision aid for transmasculine genital gender-affirming surgery developed in Amsterdam, translated in English and Dutch. The tool met all the IPDASi qualifying criteria, and scored a 17/28 on the certification criteria, and 57/112 on the quality criteria. The efficacy of the patient decision aid has not been evaluated. Despite multiple decisions required for gender affirming therapies, only one patient decision aid has been developed for transmasculine genital reconstruction. Further research is required to develop patient decision aids for the multiple decision points along the gender affirming journey.