Queer in the Heartland: Cancer Risks, Screenings, and Diagnoses among Sexual and Gender Minorities in Iowa

Cancer screening attendance rates in transgender and gender-diverse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine disparities in attendance rates at cancer screening services between transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people in comparison with their cisgender (CG) counterparts, and to determine whether these differences were based on the anatomical organ screened.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO) and Cochrane Library from inception to 30 September 2023.

METHODS

Studies for inclusion were case-control or cross-sectional studies with quantitative data that investigated TGD adults attending any cancer screening service. Exclusion criteria were studies with participants who were ineligible for cancer screening or without samples from TGD individuals, qualitative data and a cancer diagnosis from symptomatic presentation or incidental findings. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias, during which seven reports were found incompatible with the inclusion criteria and excluded. Results were synthesised through random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We identified 25 eligible records, of which 18 were included in the analysis. These were cross-sectional studies, including retrospective chart reviews and survey analyses, and encompassed over 14.8 million participants. The main outcomes measured were up-to-date (UTD) and lifetime (LT) attendance. Meta-analysis found differences for UTD cervical (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60, p<0.0001) and mammography (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87, p=0.02) but not for prostate or colorectal screening. There were no meaningful differences seen in LT attendance based on quantitative synthesis. Narrative synthesis of the seven remaining articles mostly supported the meta-analysis. Reduced rates of screening engagement in TGD participants were found for UTD cervical and mammography screening, alongside LT mammography screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with their CG counterparts, TGD individuals had lower rates of using cervical and mammography screening at the recommended frequencies but displayed similar prevalences of LT attendance. The greatest disparity was seen in UTD cervical screening. Limitations of this review included high risk of bias within studies, high heterogeneity and a lack of resources for further statistical testing. Bridging gaps in healthcare to improve cancer screening experiences and outcomes will require consolidated efforts including working with the TGD community.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022368911.

Participation, barriers, and facilitators of cancer screening among LGBTQ+ populations: A review of the literature

The LGBTQ+ community is at higher risk of certain cancers but is less likely to participate in screening programs or engage with preventive healthcare. Despite this, the barriers and facilitators to cancer screening are not well understood in this population. We conducted a literature review of research related to LGBTQ+ participation in cancer screening, as well as barriers and facilitators to participation. Following abstract and full-text screening, 50 studies were included in the final synthesis. Compared to their heterosexual counterparts, lesbian and bisexual women were less likely to participate in cervical cancer screening and mammography, but gay and bisexual men were more likely to participate in anal and colorectal cancer screening. Transgender individuals had lower rates of screening than cisgender individuals for all cancer types. Barriers to participation were found at the individual-, provider-, and administrator-level, and good communication with a healthcare provider was the strongest facilitator. These results provide reasonable first steps toward improving participation rates for LGBTQ+ populations in cancer screening. Patient-centered approaches should draw on core guiding principles to inform the provision of care, including anticipating LGBTQ+ patients, improving knowledge about care for these patients, and confronting individually-held biases that may affect care, in order to improve care experiences and participation rates in preventive services.

Culturally safe, appropriate, and high-quality breast cancer screening for transgender people: A scoping review

Background

There is a recognized need for evidence to inform breast cancer screening guidelines and services for transgender people, who face barriers to accessing appropriate and inclusive health care.

Aims

This review summarized evidence for breast cancer risk and screening guidelines in transgender individuals, including the potential impact of gender-affirming hormone therapy (GAHT); factors that may influence screening decision-making and behaviors; and considerations for providing culturally safe, high-quality screening services.

Methods

A protocol was developed based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Searches were performed in Medline, Emcare, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library for articles reporting information on the provision of culturally safe, high-quality breast cancer screening services for transgender people.

Results

We identified 57 sources for inclusion: 13 cross-sectional studies, 6 case reports, 2 case series, 28 review or opinion articles, 6 systematic reviews, 1 qualitative study, and 1 book chapter. Evidence on rates of breast cancer screening among transgender people and the association between GAHT and breast cancer risk was inconclusive. Factors negatively associated with cancer screening behaviors included socioeconomic barriers, stigma, and lack of health provider awareness of transgender health issues. Breast cancer screening recommendations varied and were generally based on expert opinion due to the lack of clear evidence. Considerations for providing culturally safe care to transgender people were identified and mapped to the areas of workplace policies and procedures, patient information, clinic environment, professional conduct, communication, and knowledge and competency.

Discussion

Screening recommendations for transgender individuals are complicated by the lack of robust epidemiological data and clear understanding of the role GAHT may play in breast cancer pathogenesis. Guidelines have been developed based on expert opinion and are subsequently not uniform or evidence based. Further work is required to clarify and consolidate recommendations.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Among Transgender and Gender Diverse People in the United States: An Integrative Review

Objective

This integrative review explores the barriers to and facilitators for human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination among adult transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people in the United States.

Data Source

A systematic search of electronic databases included PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE from 1985 to 2020.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria included studies from the United States that described HPV vaccination barriers or facilitators and included adult TGD participants, both quantitative and qualitative studies. Exclusion criteria were studies that reported only HPV vaccine prevalence, non-English/non-U.S. studies, and studies limited to pediatric populations.

Data Extraction

Two investigators used Covidence software to screen studies and manage data extraction. Quality of the quantitative studies was appraised using a checklist proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI); qualitative studies were appraised using quality criteria informed by the literature.

Data Synthesis

The Social Ecological Model guided the review to organize barriers to and facilitators for HPV vaccination at the patient-, provider-, and system-levels.

Results

Database searches and hand-searching yielded 843 citations. After screening, eight articles were retained in the review. Seven were cross-sectional studies and one was a qualitative focus-group. All retained quantitative studies met six of the eight JBI quality checklist items.

Conclusion

The low proportion of TGD participants in the retained studies highlights a gap in knowledge about HPV vaccination among this population. Future studies of HPV vaccination should recruit TGD people to better represent their perspectives.