Disparities in health-related quality of life among lesbian, gay, and bisexual cancer survivors

Theory of health promotion for sexual and gender minority populations with cancer

BACKGROUND

Structural factors (e.g., cisheteronormativity) promote minority stressors, which generate healthcare disparities among sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations (also known as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersexual, asexual, and other sexual and gender-expansive persons--LGBTQIA+) with cancer. The individual's biological, behavioral, social, and psychological response to minority stressors will vary throughout their life course. However, there is a lack of empirical and theoretical guidance for conceptualizing health outcomes among SGM subgroups.

PURPOSE

To propose a nursing theory for the health promotion of SGM populations with cancer.

METHODS

Walker and Avant's strategies for theoretical derivation were followed.

RESULTS

I present the definition, theoretical assumptions, concepts, propositions, and implications for practice, education, research, and policy of the derived theory.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The theory provides a nursing framework to understand and address the multilevel impact of minority stress on the health of SGM individuals throughout their cancer care continuum.

Healthcare experiences among Black and White sexual and gender minority cancer survivors: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore healthcare experiences of Black and White sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer survivors across the cancer care continuum.

METHODS

This was a qualitative analysis of two focus groups and eight individual interviews completed as part of a larger initiative using a community-engaged research approach to reduce cancer disparities in marginalized communities. There was a total of 16 participants in the study (9 were White, 7 were Black) and data were collected between 2019 and 2020.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged from the thematic analysis: strategically coming out, provider preferences, and health system challenges. Participants noted that they often came out through their support system, decided to come out based on the relevance of their SGM identity that they perceived, and expressed a desire for privacy. Lack of an accessible and competent PCP was tied to delayed cancer diagnosis and many participants voiced a preference for consistency when they found a provider they liked.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers across specialties can address barriers for SGM patients by not making assumptions about patient sexual orientation or gender identity. Institutions should systematically collect sexual orientation and gender identity information. Primary care providers should be aware that due to resistance to switching from trusted providers, they may need to take greater initiative to facilitate cancer screenings for their patients when appropriate or take special care when making referrals to ensure they are using SGM-affirming providers.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

SGM cancer survivors often benefit from a cultivating relationship with a trusted PCP or other provider.