International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment

Abstract

ObjectivesTo identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people.DesignSystematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation.SettingSix databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached.ParticipantsCPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development.InterventionAny health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people.Main outcome measuresNumber and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients.ResultsTwelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people’s healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%–94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%–56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients.ConclusionsA paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019154361.

Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8

“…Within the field, a wide range of valuable health care resources have been developed in recent years. Dahlen et al ( 2021 ) review twelve international clinical practice guidelines; over half those reviewed originate from professional bodies based in North America (e.g., Hembree et al., 2017 ) or Europe (e.g., T’Sjoen et al., 2020 ). Three are from WHO (the most recent being WHO, 2016 ).…”

Care of Transgender Patients: A General Practice Quality Improvement Approach

“…Variability in the quality of international guidelines and the absence of primary care guidelines have been previously reported [ 44 ]. As far as we know, UK GIC monitoring guidance has not previously been compared with international guidance.…”

Reflections on the Clinician’s Role with Individuals Who Self-identify as Transgender

“…By evidence-based medicine standards (Masic et al, 2008), it has long been clear that the quality of science underlying interventions is low (Byne et al, 2012). In an objective evaluation of relevant transgender Standards of Care, WPATH's guidelines, which clinicians have long used to justify their care, was given poor scores on relevant domains (Dahlen et al, 2021). The interplay of the above ten factors make every clinician and family a bit uncertain what the limits of knowledge are and why this topic creates partisan passions.…”