キャス・レビューの評価:若者のジェンダー指針の大半は厳密さに欠け、残りはWPATHと内分泌学会が形づくっている

性別違和または性別不一致を経験する子どもと青年のための臨床指針:指針の質に関する系統的レビュー(第1部)

Authors
Jo Taylor, Ruth Hall, Claire Heathcote, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt, Trilby Langton, Lorna Fraser
Journal
Archives of Disease in Childhood
Year
2024

Summary

As part of England's Cass Review, researchers at the University of York searched for every guideline or guidance document on caring for under-18s with gender dysphoria (distress about one's sex) and rated their quality using a standard checklist. They found 23 documents published between 1998 and 2022. Most scored poorly on how carefully they were developed, how usable they were, and independence from their makers. Few were built on careful reviews of the evidence, and it was often unclear how advice was reached. Guidelines from WPATH and the Endocrine Society influenced most others, so guidelines largely cited each other. Only Sweden's and Finland's evidence-based guidelines were recommended by all three raters. The review followed a plan registered in advance, but rating guidelines involves judgement, and critics dispute how the Cass reviews were framed.

Key findings

  • レビューでは、1998年から2022年に公表された23件のガイドラインまたは指針の文書(国際4件、地域3件、国16件)が見つかりました。
  • 大半は、目的の説明では高得点でしたが、どれだけ入念に作成されたか、使いやすさ、独立性では低得点でした。
  • 入念な作成で30%を超えたのは6件の文書だけで、WPATHの2022年のガイドラインは35%、内分泌学会の2017年のガイドラインは42%でした。
  • 入念な作成で50%を超え、3人の評価者全員が使用を推奨したのは、スウェーデン(2022年)とフィンランド(2020年)のガイドラインだけでした。
  • 10件のガイドラインが患者またはその代表者を関与させていましたが、子ども、10代、親に直接尋ねたと述べたのは2件だけでした。
  • WPATHと内分泌学会の指針は、国や地域の指針の大半の基礎となっており、この2つの団体は共同での後援を通じて結びついています。
  • 著者らは、大半の指針には独立した、エビデンスに基づくアプローチが欠けていると結論づけ、サービスはそれに頼る前にこのことを念頭に置くべきだとしています。

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence are being referred to specialist gender services. There are various guidelines outlining approaches to the clinical care of these children and adolescents. AIM: To examine the quality and development of published guidelines or clinical guidance containing recommendations for managing gender dysphoria/incongruence in children and/or adolescents (age 0-18). A separate paper reports the synthesis of guideline recommendations. METHODS: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science) were searched to April 2022 and web-based searches and contact with international experts continued to December 2022, with results assessed independently by two reviewers. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool was used to examine guideline quality. RESULTS: Twenty-three guidelines/clinical guidance publications (1998-2022) were identified (4 international, 3 regional and 16 national). The quality and methods reporting in these varied considerably. Few guidelines systematically reviewed empirical evidence, and links between evidence and recommendations were often unclear. Although most consulted with relevant stakeholders, including 10 which involved service users or user representatives, it was often unclear how this influenced recommendations and only two reported including children/adolescents and/or parents. Guidelines also lacked clarity about implementation. Two international guidelines (World Professional Association for Transgender Health and Endocrine Society) formed the basis for most other guidance, influencing their development and recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Most clinical guidance for managing children/adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence lacks an independent and evidence-based approach and information about how recommendations were developed. This should be considered when using these to inform service development and clinical practice. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021289659.

Conclusion

Most clinical guidance for managing children and adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria/incongruence lacks an independent and evidence-based approach and information about how recommendations were developed. The WPATH and Endocrine Society international guidelines, which like other guidance lack developmental rigour and transparency, have dominated the field and are linked through co-sponsorship; healthcare services and professionals should take into account the poor quality and inter-related nature of published guidance when using it to inform service development and clinical practice.