Transgender health and medicine – Are radiological devices prepared?

Matoori, Simon; Donners, Ricardo; Nuñez, David Garcia; Nguyen-Duong, Stéphanie; Riopel, Corine; Baumgartner, Melanie; Sartoretti, Elisabeth; Sartoretti, Thomas; Sartoretti–Schefer, Sabine; Volm, Tanja; Fröhlich, Johannes; Forstner, Rosemarie; Koh, Dow‐Mu; Gutzeit, Andreas

doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2022.110320

Cited by 6 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An important reason to have male radiologists in ultrasound teams is that male patients are also investigated in radiology departments; this is due to the increasing incidence of male breast cancer throughout the world [15][16][17][18]. Furthermore, increasing numbers of transsexual women with hormonal stimulation are likely to develop breast cancer [19][20][21]. The prevalence of gynecomastia among men is also high, and these men have to undergo ultrasound investigations [22].…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound: Are male radiologists still needed?

Sartoretti,

Largiadèr,

Sartoretti

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction A trend towards less male radiologists specializing in breast ultrasound was observed. A common notion in the field of breast radiology is, that female patients feel more comfortable being treated by female radiologists. The aim of the study was to understand and report the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound with regards to the sex of the radiologist performing the investigation. Methods Informed consent was obtained from all patients prior to inclusion in a prospective bi-center quality study. At center 1 (72 patients), the women were examined exclusively by female radiologists, at center 2 (100 patients) only by male radiologists. After the examination the patients were asked about their experiences and their wishes for the future. Results Overall, women made no distinction between female and male radiologists; 25% of them wanted a female radiologist and 1.2% wanted a male radiologist. The majority (74%) stated that it made no difference whether a female or male radiologist performed the examination. The majority of women in group 2, who were investigated exclusively by male radiologists, stated that they had no preferences with regard to the sex of the radiologist (93%); 5% of the women wished to be investigated solely by a female radiologist and 2% exclusively by a male radiologist. Discussion The majority of women undergoing breast ultrasound are unconcerned about the radiologist’s sex. It would appear that women examined by male radiologists are less selective about the sex of the examining radiologist. Trial registration Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. All patient data were anonymized. The physicians had no access to any further personal data. National regulations did not require dedicated ethics approval with anonymized lists or retrospective questionnaires.

show abstract

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound: Are male radiologists still needed?

Sartoretti,

Largiadèr,

Sartoretti

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,3 Many more people are seen in medical imaging departments who present with a gender identity different from the sex assigned at birth and different to their reproductive organs. Matoori et al 4 found that out of 116,525 imaging sessions per year in a large hospital, 350 sessions were conducted on transgender patients. A recent study shows that 0.5% of US adults and 1.2-1.7% of US secondary school students identify as trans or gender diverse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender‐inclusive practice in pregnancy determination for transgender, gender diverse and non‐binary patients in medical imaging

Badawy,

Dadoo,

Grossmann

et al. 2023

J Med Imag Rad Onc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryIn recent years, there has been an increased awareness and understanding of the varying gender identities within our society. Consequently, there has also been a need for healthcare providers to be cognizant of the unique needs of a gender‐diverse population. Determining the pregnancy status of transgender, gender‐diverse and non‐binary patients in medical imaging settings has been poorly handled, and there is a lack of standardisation in the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand setting. The potential risk of exposing a gender‐diverse pregnant patient to ionising radiation increases the need for guidance to ensure potentially pregnant persons are not missed during screening questionnaires. This review article explores various approaches to pregnancy status determination for gender‐diverse patients, recognising the complexities involved and emphasising the need for future work to establish a widely accepted solution.

show abstract

Improving radiology information systems for inclusivity of transgender and gender‐diverse patients: what are the problems and what are the solutions? A systematic review

Ho,

Williams,

Sun

2024

J of Medical Radiation Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn medical radiation science (MRS), radiology information systems (RISs) record patient information such as name, gender and birthdate. The purpose of RISs is to ensure the safety and well‐being of patients by recording patient data accurately. However, not all RISs appropriately capture gender, sex or other related information of transgender and gender‐diverse (TGD) patients, resulting in non‐inclusive and discriminatory care. This review synthesises the research surrounding the limitations of RISs preventing inclusivity and the features required to support inclusivity and improve health outcomes.MethodsStudies were retrieved from three electronic databases (Scopus, PubMed and Embase). A quality assessment was performed using the Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence‐Based Practice Research and Non‐Research Evidence Appraisal Tools. A thematic analysis approach was used to synthesise the included articles.ResultsEighteen articles were included based on the predetermined eligibility criteria. The pool of studies included in this review comprised primarily of non‐research evidence and reflected the infancy of this research field and the need for further empirical evidence. The key findings of this review emphasise how current systems do not record the patient's name and pronouns appropriately, conflate sex and gender and treat sex and gender as a binary concept.ConclusionFor current systems to facilitate inclusivity, they must implement more comprehensive information and data models incorporating sex and gender and be more flexible to accommodate the transient and fluid nature of gender. However, implementation of these recommendations is not without challenges. Additionally, further research focused on RISs is required to address the unique challenges MRS settings present to TGD patients.

show abstract

Transgender health and medicine – Are radiological devices prepared?

Cited by 6 publications

References 17 publications

Understanding the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound: Are male radiologists still needed?

Understanding the needs of women undergoing breast ultrasound: Are male radiologists still needed?

Gender‐inclusive practice in pregnancy determination for transgender, gender diverse and non‐binary patients in medical imaging

Improving radiology information systems for inclusivity of transgender and gender‐diverse patients: what are the problems and what are the solutions? A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About