The Journal of adolescent health : official publication of the Society for Adolescent Medicine · 2025
Learning in the Shadow of Legislation: The Impact of Anti-Transgender Legislation on Adolescent Medicine Fellows' Training and Future Practice.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Rider-Longmaid Emily, Lett Elle, Gzesh Ari S, Jelinek Scott K, Dowshen Nadia
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To assess how anti-transgender legislation influences Adolescent Medicine (AM) fellows' training choices, educational experiences, and future clinical practice.
METHODS: A national survey was distributed to US AM fellowship programs (October-December 2024). This survey assessed perceived legislative climate, training quality, and moral distress. Open-ended responses were thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-six fellows from 24 institutions across 15 states responded. Most (79.5%) cited gender-affirming care as important in choosing AM; 62.5% reported that legislation influenced their rank list. Fellows in states with actual or perceived restrictive legislation reported higher rates of suboptimal (76.0%) and harmful (24.0%) care, and anticipated greater practice restrictions (80.0% vs. 45.2%). Qualitative themes included fewer educational opportunities, professional censorship, and ethical conflict related to legal threats and patient harm.
DISCUSSION: Anti-transgender legislation significantly impacts the training, wellbeing, and future practice of AM fellows, threatening the clinical pipeline and quality of care for transgender and gender-diverse youth.
METHODS: A national survey was distributed to US AM fellowship programs (October-December 2024). This survey assessed perceived legislative climate, training quality, and moral distress. Open-ended responses were thematically analyzed.
RESULTS: Fifty-six fellows from 24 institutions across 15 states responded. Most (79.5%) cited gender-affirming care as important in choosing AM; 62.5% reported that legislation influenced their rank list. Fellows in states with actual or perceived restrictive legislation reported higher rates of suboptimal (76.0%) and harmful (24.0%) care, and anticipated greater practice restrictions (80.0% vs. 45.2%). Qualitative themes included fewer educational opportunities, professional censorship, and ethical conflict related to legal threats and patient harm.
DISCUSSION: Anti-transgender legislation significantly impacts the training, wellbeing, and future practice of AM fellows, threatening the clinical pipeline and quality of care for transgender and gender-diverse youth.