4.4 Article

Quality of life of men and women with gender identity disorder

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12955-018-0995-7

关键词

Quality of life; Gender identity disorder; Gender dysphoria; Hormone therapy; Sex reassignment; Male to female transgender; Female to male transgender

资金

  1. Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the self-reported perceived quality of life (QoL) in female to male (FTM) and male to female (MTF) transgenders and compare it with a general population sample, and to find possible determinants that likely contribute to their QoL. Methods: Participants were 71 trandgenders participating in the communities of Isfahan and Fars provinces, Iran, including 30 MTF and 41 FTM, and 142 gender-and age-matched controls. Persian version of the Short Form 36-Item Questionnaire was used to evaluate self-reported QoL, which measures QoL across eight domains. Results: Compared to control group, the QoL of transgenders in the most dimensions of the SF-36 questionnaire was lower. MTF had a lower QoL than FTM for the subscale physical functioning (p = 0.044). There was a significant relationship between education and subscales of emotional well-being (p = 0.048) and social function (p = 0.008); economic status and physical function subscale (p = 0.003); employment status and physical function (p = 0.012) and social function subscales (p = 0.003). Compared to male controls, MTF transgenders had lower physical functioning (P < 0.001), role limitation due to physical health (P = 0.015), vitality (P = 0.023), social functioning (P < 0.001) and pain score (P = 0.044) and no significant differences between female controls and FTM transgenders were seen. Conclusion: Transgenders have lower physical and mental QoL, FTM transgender has better QoL than MTF transgender. Employment, education, province of residence and economic status as well as therapeutic intervention is associated with transgender's QoL.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据