BMJ Open Quality (Jun 2024)

Practical guide to implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: evaluating acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility

  • Melissa Stepney,
  • Abhilash Jain,
  • Jeremy Rodrigues,
  • Rakhshan Kamran,
  • Liam Jackman,
  • Anna Laws,
  • Conrad Harrison

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002677
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 2

Abstract

Read online

Objective Assess acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility of the Practical Guide to Implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) from a sample of patients and healthcare professionals.Design Cross-sectional study conducted August–October 2023.Setting Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic.Participants Patient participants seeking care and healthcare professionals working at an NHS gender clinic were eligible for participation. The PG-PROM-GAC was sent to participants via email for review.Outcome measures Three validated tools to measure acceptability, appropriateness and feasibility were administered: the acceptability of intervention measure (AIM), intervention appropriateness measure (IAM) and feasibility of intervention measure (FIM). The percentage of participants indicating agreement or disagreement with items on the AIM, IAM and FIM was calculated.Results A total of 132 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients (mean age, SD: 33, 14) and 13 gender-affirming healthcare professionals (mean age, SD: 43, 11) completed the AIM, IAM and FIM, representing a range of gender identities. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the patient-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 50% for each item. The cumulative percentage of patients indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 20% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating agree or strongly agree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the healthcare professional-relevant strategies in the PG-PROM-GAC was over 38% for each item. The cumulative percentage of healthcare professionals indicating disagree or strongly disagree on the AIM, IAM and FIM for the PG-PROM-GAC was less than 15% for each item.Conclusions Gender-affirming healthcare professionals and TGD patients find the PG-PROM-GAC acceptable, appropriate and feasible. The PG-PROM-GAC is ready-to-use for clinicians, policy-makers and researchers committed to service improvement for gender-affirming care.