Will clinical standards not be part of the choir? Harmonization between the HL7 gender harmony project model and the NASEM measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation report in the United States. (26th October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Baker, Kellan E; Compton, D'Lane; Fechter-Leggett, Ethan D; Grasso, Chris; Kronk, Clair A
• Is Part Of: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. Volume 30:Number 1(2023)
• Page Start: 83
• Page End: 93
• Publication Date: 2022-10-26
• Subjects: gender identity -- sex -- health information interoperability -- Health Level Seven -- National Academies of Science -- Engineering -- and Medicine; Medical informatics -- Periodicals; Information Services -- Periodicals; Medical Informatics -- Periodicals; Médecine -- Informatique -- Périodiques; Informatica; Geneeskunde; Informatique médicale; Computer network resources; Electronic journals; 610.285
• DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac205
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1067-5027

Abstract

Abstract: Objectives: To propose an approach for semantic and functional data harmonization related to sex and gender constructs in electronic health records (EHRs) and other clinical systems for implementors, as outlined in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) report Measuring Sex, Gender Identity, and Sexual Orientation and the Health Level 7 (HL7) Gender Harmony Project (GHP) product brief "Gender Harmony—Modeling Sex and Gender Representation, Release 1." Materials and Methods: Authors from both publications contributed to a plan for data harmonization based upon fundamental principles in informatics, including privacy, openness, access, legitimate infringement, least intrusive alternatives, and accountability. Results: We propose construct entities and value sets that best align with both publications to allow the implementation of EHR data elements on gender identity, recorded sex or gender, and sex for clinical use in the United States. We include usability- and interoperability-focused reasoning for each of these decisions, as well as suggestions for cross-tabulation for populations. Discussion and Conclusion: Both publications agree on core approaches to conceptualization and measurement of sex- and gender-related constructs. However, some clarifications could improve our ability to assess gender modality, alignment (or lack thereof) between gender identity and assigned gender at birth, and address both individual-level and population-level health inequities. By bridging the GHP and NASEM recommendations, we provide a path forward for implementation of sex- and gender-related EHR elements. Suggestions for implementation of gender identity, recorded sex or gender, and sex for clinical use are provided, along with semantic and functional justifications.