4.5 Review

What Surgeons Need to Know About Gender Confirmation Surgery When Providing Care for Transgender Individuals A Review

期刊

JAMA SURGERY
卷 152, 期 4, 页码 394-400

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5549

关键词

-

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IMPORTANCE In 2014, the US Department of Health and Human Services decided that its 1981 exclusion of transsexual surgical treatments from Medicare coverage was based on outdated, incomplete, and biased science and did not reflect current evidence or standards of care, and the exclusion was therefore lifted. As a direct result of this decision, surgeons nationwide are seeing an increase in consultations for surgical therapy to help transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals. Although some clinicians may have the technical training for such surgical procedures, in many cases, they may not have a full understanding of the complex and comprehensive care required to provide optimal health care for transgender individuals. OBSERVATIONS Gender confirmation surgery is a developing field in the United States and other areas of the world. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health started a global education initiative intended to provide surgeons and other health care professionals with the necessary background knowledge to understand and treat this patient population. This article provides an overview of best practices as set forth in the seventh edition of the Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, including mental health, endocrinology, and surgery for trans women and trans men. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Experts in each aspect of transgender health have summarized the content of the global education initiative in this article. It provides valuable information to surgeons of all disciplines and other health care professionals to help guide the treatment and management of transgender individuals.

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

4.5
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