Disorders of Sex Development: Pediatric Psychology and the Genital Exam.

Objective: To provide suggestions for clinical care of youth with disorders of sex development (DSD) and their families, by drawing on preexisting pediatric psychology literature with a particular focus on child sexual abuse (CSA) genital exams. Method: Relevant peer-reviewed papers published since 1990 in the CSA literature were systematically reviewed, as well as an illustrative sample of general pediatric psychology papers. Results: Empirical research from the CSA literature provided information on prevalence of distress and the impact of provider behavior, the importance of preparation, and proposed interventions. Expert recommendations from CSA literature and general findings gleaned from pediatric psychology also address these issues. Conclusions: Psychological findings in the CSA pediatric population suggest that fears and anxieties are not universal and can be linked to a number of variables. Based on this review, we make a number of recommendations for potential interventions for youth with DSD and their families, emphasizing the need for further clinical research.

Improving Male Genital Examinations in Adolescent Patients: Creation and Preliminary Validation of an Assessment Tool.

PURPOSE: Providers cite lack of training and knowledge as reasons for omitting male genitourinary (GU) examinations. Also, no standard tools exist for assessment of male GU exams despite instruments for female pelvic exams. The objective of this project was to create and validate a male GU assessment instrument to evaluate trainee skill level. METHODS: A first-author created 18-item assessment instrument (addressing preparation, exam, communication) was reviewed by a seven-member expert panel of adolescent medicine providers who reviewed items using a 4-point Likert scale. Adolescent medicine faculty completed the instrument (n = 48) for trainees, and differences in assessments were analyzed utilizing chi-square (SPSS, v. 24.0 p < .05). Exempt status was granted by the Institutional Review Board. RESULTS: Nineteen trainees (13 female, 6 male) completed the instrument; no significant differences existed in assessments by gender. Trainees who completed the assessment > 2 times inspected the glans/meatus (p = .045), palpated the inguinal canals (p = .02), and informed of exam steps (p = .04) well compared to their first assessment. There were differences between provider assessments washing hands (p = .001); inspecting pubic hair (p = .000), glans (p = .001), and penis shaft (p = .002); palpating inguinal canals (p = .000); explaining exam steps (p = .000); being professional (p = .000); and explaining exam findings (p = .000). Excluding the creator, only professionalism was rated differently among providers (p = .023). CONCLUSIONS: The male genital exam assessment tool was preliminarily validated as highly relevant to the male GU exam, was not affected by learner gender, and showed learner improvement over time. There are differences between faculty, indicating individual perception of exam items and need for increased discussion before implementing the assessment instrument into practice.

Meeting report: measuring endocrine-sensitive endpoints within the first years of life.

An international workshop titled "Assessing Endocrine-Related Endpoints within the First Years of Life" was held 30 April-1 May 2007, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Representatives from a number of pregnancy cohort studies in North America and Europe presented options for measuring various endocrine-sensitive endpoints in early life and discussed issues related to performing and using those measures. The workshop focused on measuring reproductive tract developmental endpoints [e.g., anogenital distance (AGD)], endocrine status, and infant anthropometry. To the extent possible, workshop participants strove to develop or recommend standardized measurements that would allow comparisons and pooling of data across studies. The recommended outcomes include thigh fat fold, breast size, vaginal cytology, AGD, location of the testis, testicular size, and growth of the penis, with most of the discussion focusing on the genital exam. Although a number of outcome measures recommended during the genital exam have been associated with exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals, little is known about how predictive these effects are of later reproductive health or other chronic health conditions.