Academic research: Review of children & adolescent gender identity services

NHS England and Improvement recently announced an independent review into children and adolescent gender identity development services (for under 17s) which is commissioned by NHS England’s specialised commissioning directorate - (ToR of review - https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/GIDS_independent_review_ToR.pdf.).<br/><br/>This review requires extensive, expert led research and engagement in order to successfully make recommendations to inform the future shape of gender identity development services for children and young people.<br/><br/>A key principle of the review is that it must be participative, evidence based and incorporate lived experience in order to formulate conclusions and recommendations that will command the confidence of stakeholders.<br/><br/>The research streams outlined in this specification have been designed to achieve these ends. Specifically, the outputs required are to achieve the best available collation of published evidence, and qualitative and quantitative research that can feasibly be produced within the timeframe of the review.<br/><br/>Recognising that the published evidence is unlikely to be of high enough quality to form the sole basis for the recommendations of the review, a process is needed for synthesising the published evidence and research outputs of the academic team(s) with stakeholder submissions and expert opinion. This will involve a consensus development approach, using Delphi or other appropriate tools, and we would anticipate that the research team(s) would be integral to this important stage of the review.<br/><br/>The review will report to NHS England’s Commissioning Committee and a project assurance group, Chaired by Dr Cass has been set up to oversee the work. The project assurance group will assist the Chair in ensuring the process and conduct of review is appropriate, fit for purpose and that decisions are transparent. The assurance group does not contain subject matter experts or service users and their role is strictly the governance of the review process, not to inform outcome. The group includes ethics, legal, and research expertise, plus experience in CYP advocacy, and CYP participation.