Dyadic stress of breast cancer survivors and their caregivers: Are there differences by sexual orientation?

Evolving Landscape of Ethics in Oncology: A Journey Through the Past, Present, and Future

Providing a brief overview of past, present, and future ethics issues in oncology, this article begins with historical contexts, including the paternalistic approach to cancer care. It delves into present-day challenges such as navigating cancer treatment during pregnancy and addressing health care disparities faced by LGBTQ+ individuals. It also explores the ethical implications of emerging technologies, notably artificial intelligence and Big Data, in clinical decision making and medical education.

Scoping review of experiences of sexual minority women treated for breast cancer

PURPOSE

To summarize and critique research on the experiences and outcomes of sexual minority women (SMW) treated with surgery for breast cancer through systematic literature review.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search identified studies from the last 20 years addressing surgical experiences and outcomes of SMW breast cancer survivors. Authors performed a quality assessment and thematic content analysis to identify emergent themes.

RESULTS

The search yielded 121 records; eight qualitative studies were included in the final critical appraisal. Quality scores for included studies ranged 6-8 out of 10. Experiences and outcomes of SMW breast cancer survivors were organized by major themes: 1) Individual, 2) Interpersonal, 3) Healthcare System, and 4) Sociocultural and Discursive.

CONCLUSIONS

SMW breast cancer survivors have unique experiences of treatment access, decision-making, and quality of life in survivorship. SMW breast cancer survivors' personal values, preferences, and support network are critical considerations for researchers and clinicians.

"Queer people are excellent caregivers, but we're stretched so very thin": Psychosocial wellbeing and impacts of caregiving among LGBTQI cancer carers

BACKGROUND

LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex) communities are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable and high-risk population in oncology. LGBTQI cancer carers, including carers who are LGBTQI and other carers of LGBTQI people, experience many of the same stressors as LGBTQI patients but their support needs are often overlooked in the cancer literature.

METHOD

This mixed-methods study examined distress and quality of life in LGBTQI cancer carers. Online surveys were completed by 129 carers and 31 carers took part in a one-to-one semi-structured interview. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested for differences in psychosocial outcomes and carer experiences by gender, sexuality, age, carer relationship and carer/patient LGBTQI status. Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses facilitated in-depth examination of subjective experiences.

RESULTS

42.6% of participants reported high or very high distress. Distress was significantly positively correlated with discrimination in cancer care, health impact, financial impact and lack of family support; it was negatively correlated with comfort in LGBTQI sexuality and gender identity, social support and quality of life. Four themes were identified in thematic analysis of qualitative data: (1) Identity on the sidelines: LGBTQI sexuality and gender pushed aside during cancer caregiving; (2) Fear of being shut-out: rejection and exclusion of LGBTQI cancer carers; (3) Lack of support for LGBTQI caregivers; and (4) Closer and stronger relationships due to a culture of mutual caregiving.

CONCLUSIONS

LGBTQI cancer carers must contend with typical caregiving demands whilst also managing additional minority stressors, including discrimination, rejection from family, isolation from LGBTQI communities, and invisibility in healthcare and support services. Despite this, LGBTQI carers showed resilience in building their own mutually supportive networks to rally around the person with cancer, which were reported to ameliorate psychosocial vulnerabilities. Service providers need to recognize the needs of LGBTQI cancer carers through inclusive and reflective practices. This will facilitate trust and patient and carer sexuality and gender identity disclosure, with positive consequences for wellbeing and satisfaction with cancer care.

Clinical, psychosocial, and sociodemographic factors of sexual and gender minority groups with cancer: A systematic review

PURPOSE

Psychosocial health varies depending on demographic and clinical factors and the social context in which individuals grow and live. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience health disparities due to systemic factors that privilege cisgender and heterosexual identities. We reviewed the literature on the psychosocial, sociodemographic, and clinical factors in SGM groups with cancer and described the associations among these factors.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review according to Fink's methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines in the PubMed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and LGBTQ+ Life databases. Quantitative articles published in English or Spanish were included. Grey literature and studies with participants in hospice care were excluded. The quality of the publications was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute criticalappraisal tools.

RESULTS

The review included 25 publications. In SGM groups, systemic cancer treatment was associated with worse psychosocial outcomes; and older age, employment, and higher income were associated with better psychosocial outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

SGM groups with cancer are different from their heterosexual cisgender peers in sociodemographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors. Clinical and sociodemographic factors are associated with psychosocial outcomes among SGM individuals with cancer.

Improving Sexual and Gender Minority Cancer Care: Patient and Caregiver Perspectives From a Multi-Methods Pilot Study

Purpose

Up to 1 million lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (i.e., sexual and gender minority, SGM) individuals in the United States have histories of cancer. This medically underserved population is diverse, with complex sexualities and gender identities, and distinct health concerns. SGM persons experience disproportionate risks for, and rates of, anal, breast, cervical, colorectal, endometrial, lung, and prostate cancers, in addition to cancers affecting transgender persons who have undergone sex-reassignment. SGM individuals are linked by shared experiences of stigmatization as a minority population for which little cancer research has been conducted. SGM cancer patients frequently report reluctance to seek healthcare, have poorer outcomes following diagnosis, engage in elevated risk behaviors (i.e. smoking and alcohol use) even after cancer diagnosis, have difficulty making emotional adjustment to illness, and experience higher rates of psychological distress. They report less satisfaction with cancer care, deficiencies in patient-centeredness and shared decision-making, gaps in care, and social isolation. Minority stress resulting from experiences of anti-SGM sentiment and discrimination affects cancer patients and their informal cancer caregivers. Our paper presents findings from a pilot study to identify gaps and opportunities to improve cancer care for SGM patients and caregivers at the University of New Mexico Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Methods

Between June 2020 and July 2021, we used a multi-methods research design informed by ecological theory to collect qualitative and quantitative data regarding cancer patient and caregiver quality of life (QoL) and experiences of cancer and survivorship care. We used PROMIS measures distributed via REDCap to assess QoL (i.e., fatigue, pain interference, pain intensity, anxiety, depression, emotional support, social isolation, and companionship), and conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews. We recruited 10 SGM cancer patients and 8 heterosexual, cisgender (H/C) patient matches, and their self-identified informal cancer caregivers (n=36, dyad total n=18). Interviews ranged from 1 to 2 hours, were audio-recorded and transcribed for analysis. The study was approved by the University of New Mexico Human Research Protections Office Institutional Review Board.

Results

Results of the PROMIS QoL assessments indicated that SGM patients reported greater anxiety [mean (SD) = 54.5 (8.8)] and depression [mean (SD) = 49.3 (4.8)] than H/C patients [mean (SD)=51.6 (7.5) and 45.4 (6.8) respectively], while heterosexual, cisgender (H/C) patients reported higher fatigue [mean (SD) =52.04 (8.18)] and stronger pain intensity than SGM patients [mean (SD)=48.3 (9.1) and 37.8 (9.1) respectively]. SGM patients reported higher levels of social isolation [mean (SD) = 48.3 (7.3) vs. 42.1 (7.4) for H/C patients, whereas H/C patients reported more emotional support (mean (SD) =57.5 (9.3) vs. 53.0 (6.9)] and companionship [mean (SD) = 55.2 (8.6) vs. 51.5 (11.0)]. SGM and H/C differences in caregiver QoL were most notable with regards to higher levels of fatigue [mean (SD) = 47.1 (6.0) for SGM, and 42.4 (11.5) for H/C] and companionship [mean (SD) = 55.3 (6.0) for SGM, and 50.9 (5.5) for H/C]. Qualitative interviews supported our quantitative results. SGM patients and caregivers articulated experiences of anti-SGM stigma and discrimination contributing to minority stress that influenced their initial cancer care encounters. SGM dyads had more trepidation and/or medical mistrust during initial cancer care encounters when compared to H/C patients and caregivers. SGM patients questioned care that was not culturally responsive to SGM preferences, while H/C patients were more apt to identify gaps in communication and perceived lack of clarity regarding cancer care delivery. Although SGM patients experienced high satisfaction with their cancer care once they developed trust with their providers, they discussed desires to have more direct conversations with their oncologists about their sexual orientation and gender identities and sexual health. All patients and providers in the study (SGM and H/C) appreciated their oncology care teams. All patients and caregivers relied on social networks comprised of friends and family, although SGM patients and caregivers had smaller social networks and relied less on biological family, and single SGM individuals experienced challenges accessing cancer care and struggled with social isolation. We discovered too, that all caregivers, regardless of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI), perceived a lack of support and information pertaining to their loved one’s treatment, side effects and best way to provide care.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that prior stigmatizing experiences contribute to minority stress and medical mistrust for SGM cancer patients and their informal caregivers across the cancer care experience. Findings point to specific gaps in SGM cancer patient care, including lack of conversation about patient SOGI, inadequate staff and oncology provider SGM specific knowledge and cultural competence/cultural humility training, and insufficient patient supports for those who lack social support during cancer care treatment. Further, this study reveals inadequacies in SGM specific support, and overall support services for informal cancer caregivers. Additional research is required to develop targeted interventions to address minority stress and clinic environment concerns to improve cancer care for SGM patients. Importantly, while there were differences between SGM and H/C experiences of cancer treatment, significant similarities also emerged. Caregiver expressed consensus about the current lack of support and guidance for informal caregivers of cancer patients. Future work should focus on providing caregiver-specific resources in the clinic setting and facilitating support groups for caregivers to network with one another, as well as for tailoring SGM specific caregiver support services. Our findings highlight areas for improving cancer care for the SGM community, as well as a broader population of patients and caregivers.

Health outcomes of sexual and gender minorities after cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Cancer research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations is gaining momentum. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine what is currently known in the research literature regarding patient-reported health outcomes after cancer treatment among SGM populations.

METHODS

In March 2021, a medical librarian conducted a systematic keyword search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary inclusion criterion was assessment of at least one physical, psychosocial, emotional, or functional patient-reported health outcome related to the impacts of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in their entirety, charted in a Word Table, and assessed for quality. Quality considerations included study design, sampling approach, diversity of sample, measures used, and analytic procedures. Studies were synthesized based on type of cancer study participants experienced.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the final analysis: most were quantitative, secondary analyses or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, and focused on people with a history of breast or prostate cancer. Differences between sexual minority men and women in terms of coping and resilience were noted. Few studies reported on experiences of transgender persons and none reported on experiences of intersex persons.

CONCLUSIONS

A growing literature describes the patient-reported health outcomes of SGM people with a history of cancer. This study summarizes important between-group differences among SGM and heterosexual, cisgender counterparts that are critical for clinicians to consider when providing care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Sexual orientation and gender identity are relevant to cancer survivors' health outcomes. Subgroups of SGM people have differential experiences and outcomes related to cancer and its impacts.

Health outcomes of sexual and gender minorities after cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Cancer research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations is gaining momentum. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine what is currently known in the research literature regarding patient-reported health outcomes after cancer treatment among SGM populations.

METHODS

In March 2021, a medical librarian conducted a systematic keyword search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary inclusion criterion was assessment of at least one physical, psychosocial, emotional, or functional patient-reported health outcome related to the impacts of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in their entirety, charted in a Word Table, and assessed for quality. Quality considerations included study design, sampling approach, diversity of sample, measures used, and analytic procedures. Studies were synthesized based on type of cancer study participants experienced.

RESULTS

Sixty-four studies were included in the final analysis: most were quantitative, secondary analyses or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, and focused on people with a history of breast or prostate cancer. Differences between sexual minority men and women in terms of coping and resilience were noted. Few studies reported on experiences of transgender persons and none reported on experiences of intersex persons.

CONCLUSIONS

A growing literature describes the patient-reported health outcomes of SGM people with a history of cancer. This study summarizes important between-group differences among SGM and heterosexual, cisgender counterparts that are critical for clinicians to consider when providing care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Sexual orientation and gender identity are relevant to cancer survivors' health outcomes. Subgroups of SGM people have differential experiences and outcomes related to cancer and its impacts.

The support that partners or caregivers provide sexual minority women who have cancer: A systematic review

RATIONALE

Intimate partners and other informal caregivers provide unpaid tangible, emotional, and decision-making support for patients with cancer, but relatively little research has investigated the cancer experiences of sexual minority women (SMW) with cancer and their partners/caregivers.

OBJECTIVE

This review addressed 4 central questions: 1) What social support do SMW with cancer receive from partners/caregivers? 2) What effect does cancer have on intimate partnerships or caregiving relationships of SMW with cancer? 3) What effects does cancer have on partners/caregivers of SMW with cancer? 4) What interventions exist to support partners/caregivers of SMW or to strengthen the patient-caregiver relationship?

METHOD

This systematic review, conducted in 2018 and updated in 2020, was based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Two independent coders screened abstracts and articles.

RESULTS

In total, 550 unique records were screened; 42 articles were assessed for eligibility, and 18 were included in a qualitative synthesis. Most studies were U.S.-based, involved breast cancer, included intimate partners, had primarily white/Caucasian samples, and were cross-sectional. Sexual minority female participants reported that partners/caregivers often provide important social support, including emotional support, decision-making support, and tangible support. Effects of cancer on relationships with partners/caregivers were mixed, with some studies finding relationships remained stable and others finding cancer either increased closeness or disrupted relationships. Participants reported partners/caregivers often experience distress and may experience discrimination, discomfort disclosing sexual orientation, and a lack of sexual minority-friendly services. No studies involved an intervention targeting partners/caregivers or the dyadic relationship.

CONCLUSIONS

More work is needed to understand SMW with cancers other than breast cancer, and future work should include more racially, ethnically, and economically diverse samples. Longitudinal research will allow an examination of patterns of mutual influence and change in relationships. These steps will enable the development of interventions to support SMW with cancer and people close to them.

Survivors' Perceptions of Quality of Colorectal Cancer Care by Sexual Orientation

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess sexual minority and heterosexual survivors' perceived quality of cancer care and identify demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics associated with patient-centered quality of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four cancer registries provided data on 17,849 individuals who were diagnosed with stage I, II, or III colorectal cancer an average of 3 years prior and resided in predetermined diverse geographic areas. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria was mailed to all cancer survivors. Of these, 480 eligible survivors participated in a telephone survey. Quality of cancer care was defined by 3 measures of interpersonal care (physician communication, nursing care, and coordination of care) and by rating cancer care as excellent. We used generalized linear models and logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each quality of care measure.

RESULTS

Sexual minority survivors rated physician communication, nursing care, and coordination of care similarly to heterosexual survivors, yet a significantly higher percentage of sexual minority survivors rated the overall quality of their cancer care as excellent (59% vs. 49%). Sexual minority survivors' greater likelihood of reporting excellent care remained unchanged after adjusting for demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority survivors' ratings of quality of colorectal cancer care were comparable or even higher than heterosexual survivors. Sexual minority survivors' reports of excellent care were not explained by their interpersonal care experiences.

Interdependence of physical and psychological morbidity among patients with cancer and family caregivers: Review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

Caregivers for patients with cancer have an integral role in maintaining patients' health. Although patients and caregivers experience the impact of cancer individually, studies suggest their health is interdependent. The objective of this review was to synthesize the literature on interdependent physical and psychological morbidity in patient-caregiver dyads published since 2016.

METHODS

A search of PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycInfo databases was performed using Cooper's recommendations and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses Guidelines. Studies were included if they measured individual physical or psychological morbidity in cancer patient-caregiver dyads, evaluated interdependence, and were published in a peer-reviewed journal.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies met criteria, characterized by mainly spousal dyads. Studies included a variety of cancers and methodologies. Findings were inconsistent, indicating varying interdependence. However, the studies demonstrated a stronger relationship between patients' and caregivers' psychological morbidity than between their physical morbidity.

CONCLUSIONS

This review revealed a need for continued exploration of dyadic health interdependence. Future studies should consider samples of patients with a single type of cancer, testing cultural mediators/moderators, and using longitudinal designs.

Addressing Cancer Disparities in SGM Populations: Recommendations for a National Action Plan to Increase SGM Health Equity Through Researcher and Provider Training and Education

Reducing health disparities for sexual and gender minority (SGM) people is a priority of the National Institutes of Health. SGM populations face barriers in cancer prevention, treatment, and survivorship care. These barriers are due to deficits in researcher and provider training and education, as well as limited National Cancer Institute funding opportunities directed at the many different SGM populations. SGM status intersects with race and ethnicity, education, geography, and poverty to exacerbate disparities further. SGM cancer research will inform SGM patient cancer care guidelines and promote best practices in care among cancer providers. Cancer professionals may benefit from tailored training to enhance their research readiness for SGM cancer care. Research readiness can promote conduct of high-impact SGM cancer research and expand the limited knowledge of SGM cancer care disparities. Here, we propose a coordinated national plan for the training and education of health science researchers and oncology providers as a key strategy to reduce SGM cancer health disparities experienced along the cancer care continuum. We describe unrecognized clinical cancer care needs of SGM patients and unmet opportunities for research partnership and offer strategies for developing flexible educational training programs, courses, and workshops to prepare researchers and healthcare providers to promote health equity and quality cancer care for members of the SGM community.

Dyadic quality of life among heterosexual and sexual minority breast cancer survivors and their caregivers

PURPOSE

The number of informal caregivers to cancer survivors is increasing, and limited information is available about caregivers to sexual minority breast cancer survivors. The purpose of this study was to assess dyadic quality of life among sexual minority cancer survivors and their caregivers compared with heterosexual cancer survivors and their caregivers.

METHODS

We recruited 167 survivors of non-metastatic breast cancer of different sexual orientations and their caregivers, who were surveyed via telephone after obtaining consent. We used inverse propensity score weighting to account for differences by sexual orientation in age and length of the survivor-caregiver relationship, and simultaneous equation models consistent with the needs for analyzing dyadic data.

RESULTS

About 6-7 years after diagnosis, survivors and caregivers reported quality of life scores consistent with population norms, and there were no differences by survivors' sexual orientation. With few exceptions, caregivers' and survivors' quality of life influenced one another directly, and these effects were stronger among sexual minority dyads than heterosexual dyads.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of the strength of sexual minority, survivors' and their caregivers' mutual influence on each other's quality of life, interventions, and clinical care for sexual minority breast cancer survivors should consider their caregivers.