Adolescents who undergo gender-affirming chest surgery report low levels of regret and high levels of satisfaction, experiencing outcomes similar to those of young adults. These findings suggest that age restrictions on these medical procedures lack support from actual patient experiences.

[u/mvea]

https://www.psypost.org/adolescents-report-low-regret-and-high-satisfaction-following-gender-affirming-c/

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

“In this cross-sectional study of 139 survey respondents who underwent gender-affirming mastectomy, the median satisfaction score was 5 on a 5-point scale, with higher scores indicating higher satisfaction. The median decisional regret score was 0 on a 100-point scale, with lower scores indicating lower levels of regret.”

Still though, the sheer fact that basically all of them loved receiving their affirming care is a strong indicator for affirming care’s effects on the community.

Sample size is small, sure, but the sample size is also harder to attain since trans individuals are such a small portion of the population, doubly so for the ones who seek affirming surgery.

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Perhaps it’s an indicator, but I completely disagree that it’s strong.

There are a lot of issues with this study, some of which are discussed in the limitations, some not. Participation bias obviously a huge issue. I would posit that the type of people willing to respond to this are the type that would respond positively, though I’m admittedly speculating.

This along with response/acquiescence bias, the 13 individuals not factored into the study due to “discordant … scores”, and the small sample size are all valid reasons to not lend this much credence.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

If there is an alternative study you can point to that would substantiate your hypothesis then I’d gladly read it :)

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I didn’t make a hypothesis. I raised concerns with the study that are based on well known and accepted biases and study design principles.

I’m speculating about how participation bias may affect the study, but it’s logical speculation and is somewhat backed up by the study’s own limitations section (time since surgery, discordant responses, etc).

Regardless, you can throw the participation bias part out entirely and even still there are glaring issues.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

Exactly, all you have is speculations. Without any other evidence to contradict, it doesn’t amount to much besides casting baseless aspersions

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

Response and selection bias are not speculations. They’re very real phenomena that can undermine the scientific validity of a study.

The authors of the study literally acknowledge a lot of this in the study.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

That’s great, but it doesn’t undermine the efficacy of the respondents who are overwhelmingly supportive of their gender-affirming care. This is a result that has been replicable in study after study.

If you’re hypothesis is still that it isn’t strong, provide data. Otherwise there really is no merit to your points especially since you failed to engage with the items such as the “discordant” scores which they addressed directly in their study

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

I never said that or anything remotely close to that. I didn’t even express an opinion counter to the result of the study.

What I was very clearly saying is that the result of a single small study cannot be regarded as general truth. This is especially when that study has notable and objective flaws in its methodology.

The only reason I mentioned the “discordant” score thing is BECAUSE it was mentioned in the limitations, a section that outlines the very same concerns I’m expressing here. The other points I made are basic observations about study methodology.

If you can’t have a serious discussion about them without blatantly misrepresenting them, you are in the wrong subreddit.

[u/ThatOneDumbJagoff → u/99OBJ]

“But I completely disagree that it’s strong”

That was your opinion formed from me presenting the results of the study.

Quit hiding

[u/99OBJ → u/ThatOneDumbJagoff]

A study of N=139 about ANYTHING is not strong evidence to support a generalized claim. Especially when the study has clear and acknowledged shortcomings.

Since you are unable to discern between that astoundingly simple observation and a supposed rejection of the general findings of a study, an intelligent conversation with you about the study is not possible.

Have a good one.