Characteristics of children and adolescents referred to specialist gender services: a systematic review

Abstract

BackgroundIncreasing numbers of children/adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence are being referred to specialist gender services. Services and practice guidelines are responding to these changes.AimThis systematic review examines the numbers and characteristics of children/adolescents (under 18) referred to specialist gender or endocrinology services.MethodsDatabase searches were performed (April 2022), with results assessed independently by two reviewers. Peer-reviewed articles providing at least birth-registered sex or age at referral were included. Demographic, gender-related, mental health, neurodevelopmental conditions and adverse childhood experience data were extracted. A narrative approach to synthesis was used and where appropriate proportions were combined in a meta-analysis.Results143 studies from 131 articles across 17 countries were included. There was a twofold to threefold increase in the number of referrals and a steady increase in birth-registered females being referred. There is inconsistent collection and reporting of key data across many of the studies. Approximately 60% of children/adolescents referred to services had made steps to present themselves in their preferred gender. Just under 50% of studies reported data on depression and/or anxiety and under 20% reported data on other mental health issues and neurodevelopmental conditions. Changes in the characteristics of referrals over time were generally not reported.ConclusionsServices need to capture, assess and respond to the potentially co-occurring complexities of children/adolescents being referred to specialist gender and endocrine services. Agreement on the core characteristics for collection at referral/assessment would help to ensure services are capturing data as well as developing pathways to meet the needs of these children.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021289659.

Critically Appraising the Cass Report: Methodological Flaws and Unsupported Claims

“…Seven systematic reviews were commissioned by the Cass Report and published in the BMJ Archives of Disease in Childhood [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] with a single systematic review protocol registered in PROSPERO for all seven reviews 9 . To evaluate their risk of bias we applied the ROBIS tool 10 as recommended by Cochrane 11,12 .…”