DSD-related attitudes and beliefs held by pediatric endocrinologists and urologists: Insights from the North American disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) clinician survey
Behzad Sorouri Khorashad,Melissa Gardner,Peter A Lee,Barry A Kogan,David E Sandberg
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2024.09.006
2024-09-13
Abstract:Background: Disorders/Differences of Sex Development (DSD) encompass congenital conditions with atypical development of chromosomal, gonadal, or anatomical sex. Due to the rarity and complexity of these conditions, strong evidence for clinical practices is scarce, leading to controversies in management. Objective: This study, part of a broader project, examines changes over time in the attitudes and beliefs of DSD healthcare providers, focusing on factors contributing to patients' life satisfaction and the influence of medical specialty, gender, and age. Methods: Participants included active members of the Pediatric Endocrine Society (PES) and the Societies for Pediatric Urology (SPU) at three time points: 2003-2004 (T1), 2010-2011 (T2), and 2020 (T3). A survey covering predictors of patient life satisfaction, attitudes and beliefs regarding DSD care and outcomes, and participant characteristics was administered. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE). Results: Demographics: Participation rates were 56% (PES) and 64.7% (SPU) at T1, 41.1% (PES) and 52.3% (SPU) at T2, and 25.6% (PES) and 51.2% (SPU) at T3. Most participants were male (T1: 70.6%, T2: 61.7%, T3: 70.6%). Factors Affecting Life Satisfaction: Both endocrinologists and urologists ranked "gender identity consistent with assigned sex" as most important. Over time, the endorsement of some factors, such as performing genital surgery at Centers of Excellence, increased, while others, like the influence of prenatal androgen exposure determining gender identity, varied by specialty and gender. Attitudes and Beliefs: Across 18 statements, responses indicated three clusters with strong agreement, moderate agreement, and strong disagreement. Statements on the importance of family background and avoiding gender discordance were consistently endorsed, while those on delaying hypospadias repair until consent were least endorsed. Discussion: The study highlights variability in beliefs about DSD management over time, influenced by specialty, gender, and age. Despite consensus on some care principles, discrepancies remain, particularly regarding the impact of prenatal androgens and the timing of surgical interventions. These findings underscore the need for regular interdisciplinary communication to align clinical practices with evidence-based guidelines and address subjective beliefs. Conclusion: The survey illustrates evolving perspectives among DSD healthcare providers, emphasizing the need for continued dialogue and education to bridge gaps between clinical evidence and practice. Collaborative efforts, such as the international I-DSD and the U.S. DSD Translational Research Network, are crucial for advancing patient-centered care in this field.