Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women

Towards inclusive healthcare: evaluating knowledge, confidence and awareness of LGBTQ + health among Internal Medicine Trainees in London

BACKGROUND

Patients from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer plus (LGBTQ +) community face various health inequalities and report poor healthcare experiences. Little is known about how knowledgeable and confident UK doctors are around LGBTQ + health, and previous research demonstrates that UK medical schools rarely deliver teaching in this area. This research evaluated the level of knowledge, awareness and confidence of LGBTQ + health among Internal Medical Trainees (IMTs) in London.

METHODS

London IMTs were invited to complete an online questionnaire evaluating knowledge, awareness and confidence in LGBTQ + health. Stratified analysis of results by demographics was performed.

RESULTS

Three hundred and fifteen surveys were analysed from 796 eligible trainees (40%). Confidence in caring for LGBTQ + patients was variable. Confidence in discussing gender identity was lower than for sexual orientation. Knowledge of health issues affecting LGBTQ + patients varied. Most participants had never received training on LGBTQ + health at undergraduate (n = 201, 64%) or postgraduate level (n = 252, 80%), but the majority of participants felt that training would be useful (n = 233, 74%). Stratified analysis revealed that IMTs who received previous LGBTQ + teaching at undergraduate or postgraduate level were considerably more confident discussing sexual orientation with patients, compared to those who received no previous teaching.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for education on LGBTQ + health, given the varied levels of knowledge and confidence identified. A significant majority of IMTs in London have never received teaching on LGBTQ + health, although there exists a strong desire for this. LGBTQ + health topics should be integrated into undergraduate and postgraduate training and examinations for IMTs. This would support IMTs in delivering high quality and inclusive care for all patients, particularly those of sexual orientation and gender identity minorities. There are relatively few published studies exploring competency in LGBTQ + health among doctors, and this is the first among UK Internal Medicine Trainees.

"It's probably an STI because you're gay": a qualitative study of diagnostic error experiences in sexual and gender minority individuals

BACKGROUND

There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations.

PURPOSE

To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions.

METHODS

Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health.

CONCLUSIONS

Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.

Stakeholder perceptions of cervical screening accessibility and attendance in Ireland: a qualitative study

Organized cervical screening programmes are commonplace in high-income countries. To provide an equitable cervical screening service, it is important to understand who is and is not attending screening and why. Promotion of screening and service improvement is not possible without recognition and identification of the barriers and needs of communities that are less engaged with screening. This study explored stakeholder perceptions of cervical screening attendance and accessibility in Ireland. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 healthcare professionals, policymakers and academics. Interviews were conducted online in 2022. Reflexive thematic analysis was used inductively to generate themes, supported by NVivo. Three themes were developed: (i) getting the right information out the right way, (ii) acceptability and accessibility of screening and (iii) trying to identify and reach the non-attenders. Participants felt public knowledge of cervical screening and human papilloma virus was low and communication strategies were not adequate. Individual, cultural, structural and service-level factors influenced the accessibility and acceptability of screening. Identifying and reaching non-attenders was considered challenging and community outreach could support those less likely to attend screening. Stakeholder perspectives were valuable in understanding the complexities of screening accessibility and attendance from individual to service-level factors. Cultural competency training, inclusive language and visual cues in waiting rooms would support engagement with some populations who may be hesitant to attend screening. Collaboration with community organizations has opportunities to promote screening and understand the needs of those less likely to attend screening.

Prevalence of self-reported cancer based on sexual orientation in the United States: a comparative analysis between lesbian, bisexual, gay, and heterosexual individuals

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare the prevalence and likelihood of self-reported (SR) cancer diagnosis between lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) groups and the heterosexual population in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2017-2021, which included 134,372 heterosexual and 4576 LGB individuals aged 18 and above. The prevalence of any SR cancer and some selected cancers were calculated for the LGB and compared with heterosexual adults. Sexual orientation was used to predict SR cancer diagnosis for each sex using multiple logistic regression, adjusting for other sociodemographic determinants.

RESULTS

The unadjusted prevalence of any SR cancer among the LGB population was 9.0%. Lesbian and Bisexual women had higher prevalence of SR cancer of the cervix, uterus, ovary, thyroid, bone, skin melanoma, leukemia, and other blood cancers than Heterosexual women. Gay and Bisexual men had a higher prevalence of SR cancer of the bladder, kidney, skin (non-melanoma, and other kinds), bone, lymphoma, and leukemia than Heterosexual men. After adjusting for other socio-demographic factors, gay men were 1.73 (CI 1.14-2.63, p = 0.01) times more likely than heterosexual men to be diagnosed with cancer, while lesbian women were 2.26 (CI 1.24-4.16, p = 0.009) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than heterosexual women.

CONCLUSION

Some sexual minority subgroups are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their heterosexual counterparts. As a result, more research and SM-specific intervention efforts should focus on cancer risk assessment, screening, prevention, treatment, and survivorship in SM populations.

Cervical cancer screening in menopause: when is it safe to exit?

IMPORTANCE AND OBJECTIVE

Despite a decreasing incidence of cervical cancer in North America overall, disparities in screening and cervical cancer rates persist, especially in the postmenopausal age group.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature regarding cervical cancer screening considerations for postmenopausal persons, with a focus on cervical cancer in postmenopausal persons, existing guidelines, screening methods, and gaps in care.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Postmenopausal persons are an important population at risk because age 65 years in the United States and up to 70 years in some parts of Canada is a milestone for screening cessation if the criteria are met. Unfortunately, inadequate screening is common, with most women 65 years or older discontinuing ( exiting ) screening despite not meeting the criteria to do so. Screening cessation recommendations are nuanced, and if not all criteria are met, screening should be continued until they are. Cervical cancer screening should be stopped at the recommended age if adequate screening has occurred or at any age if life expectancy is limited or the patient has had a hysterectomy in the absence of high-grade preinvasive cervical lesions or cervical cancer. Human papillomavirus infection, which is causally linked to almost all cervical cancer cases, can persist or reactivate from a prior infection or can be newly acquired from sexual contact. With more persons aging with a cervix in place, the potential for cervical cancer has increased, and higher cancer rates may be observed if recommended screening is not adhered to. We propose an algorithm based on current cervical cancer screening guidelines to aid providers in identifying whether exit criteria have been met. Until adequate screening has been confirmed, cervical cancer screening should continue.

Canadian Guideline on the Management of a Positive Human Papillomavirus Test and Guidance for Specific Populations

The purpose of this paper is to provide evidence-based guidance on the management of a positive human papilloma virus (HPV) test and to provide guidance around screening and HPV testing for specific patient populations. The guideline was developed by a working group in collaboration with the Gynecologic Oncology Society of Canada (GOC), Society of Colposcopists of Canada (SCC), and the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The literature informing these guidelines was obtained through a systematic review of relevant literature by a multi-step search process led by an information specialist. The literature was reviewed up to July 2021 with manual searches of relevant national guidelines and more recent publications. The quality of the evidence and strength of recommendations were developed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. The intended users of this guideline include primary care providers, gynecologists, colposcopists, screening programs, and healthcare facilities. The implementation of the recommendations will ensure an optimum implementation of HPV testing with a focus on the management of positive results. Recommendations for appropriate care for underserved and marginalized groups are made.

Breast, Prostate, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Incidence and Risk Factors in Women Who Have Sex with Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis Using UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence about cancer incidence for lesbian, gay and bisexual women and men, although the prevalence of cancer risk factors may be higher.

AIM

To describe cancer incidence for four common cancers (breast, lung, colorectal and prostate).

METHODS

This project used UK Biobank participant data. We explored risk factor prevalence (age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol intake, obesity, parity, and sexual history), and calculated cancer risk, for six groups defined based on sexual history; women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), or women (WSEW), women who have sex with men and women (WSWM); men who have sex exclusively with women (MSEW), or men (MSEM), and men who have sex with women and men (MSWM).

RESULTS

WSEW, WSWM, MSEM, and MSMW were younger, more likely to smoke, and to live in more deprived neighbourhoods. We found no evidence of an association between sexual history and breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer in age-adjusted models. Lung cancer incidence was higher for WSWM compared with WSEM, HR (95%CI) 1.78 (1.28-2.48), p = 0.0005, and MSWM compared with MSEW, 1.43 (1.03-1.99), p = 0.031; after adjustment for smoking, this difference was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority groups have a higher risk for lung cancer, due to greater exposure to smoking.

Primary Care in the Spinal Cord Injury Population: Things to Consider in the Ongoing Discussion

Purpose of Review

Spinal cord injury (SCI) creates unique needs that if not recognized and addressed timely can have detrimental effects on the health and quality of life (QOL) of people living with a SCI. Primary preventive health care is shown to decrease morbidity and mortality, yet the SCI population reportedly faces challenges getting access to this care. This area in SCI health care is still largely understudied with no consensus on the ideal way or which health care provider is best to provide primary care for this population.

Findings

Preventive care is generally provided by general primary care providers, but not all primary care providers are trained in recognizing and addressing spinal cord injury-specific needs. SCI providers generally are not trained in addressing all aspects of preventive care. Knowing the recommended preventive care screenings, recognizing and managing specific conditions seen after a SCI, and seamless coordination of care between general practitioners and SCI specialists are some of the interventions to help prevent health complications, decrease morbidity and mortality, improve health outcomes, and promote QOL in this patient population.

Summary

Prioritized focus on preventive care is necessary for a positive impact on the overall health and QOL in this population. Addressing the knowledge gap reported by primary care providers and SCI providers may help increase the probability of SCI patients getting their preventive and specialty care needs addressed. We present a "cheat sheet" of recommendations for the preventive care evaluation of a person living with a SCI.

Self-sampling for cervical screening offered at the point of invitation: A cross-sectional study of preferences in England

OBJECTIVES

This study assessed preferences for human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling if offered as an alternative to clinician-based screening at the point of invitation for cervical screening.

SETTING AND METHODS

An online questionnaire was completed by screening-eligible women living in England (n = 3672). Logistic regressions explored associations between demographic characteristics and screening preferences, stratified by previous screening attendance. Reasons for preferences were also assessed.

RESULTS

Half of participants (51.4%) intended to choose self-sampling, 36.5% preferred clinician screening, 10.5% were unsure, and <2% preferred no screening. More irregular and never attenders chose self-sampling, compared with regular attenders (71.1% and 70.1% vs. 41.0% respectively). Among regular attenders, self-sampling was preferred more frequently by the highest occupational grade, older and lesbian, gay and bisexual women, and those with experience of blood self-tests. In the irregular attender group, older women and those with experience of blood self-tests were more likely to choose self-sampling. In 'never attenders', self-sampling was less popular in ethnic minority groups.

CONCLUSIONS

If offered a choice of screening, around half of women in England may choose self-sampling, but a substantial proportion would still opt for clinician screening. Screening providers will need to manage a high take-up of self-sampling if many regular attenders switch to self-sampling.

US women screen at low rates for both cervical and colorectal cancers than a single cancer: a cross-sectional population-based observational study

Background:

Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both.

Methods:

We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50–64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category.

Results:

Among women ages 50–64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1–59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0–28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9–5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7–9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60–64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)).

Conclusions:

Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50–64 years may increase both cancer screening rates.

Funding:

This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.

Routine screenings for cervical and colorectal cancers save lives by detecting cancers at an early stage when they are more treatable and more likley to cure. Most cancer screening in the United States is focused on single cancer screening programs, often held at community health fairs, pop-up screening vans and other settings, without coordination with the individuals’ primary care doctors.

This is problematic because the primary care physician cannot counsel if the results are abnormal and advise when the next routine screen is appropriate. This leads to gaps in women not being informed that they are due for routine screening and gaps to act on any abnormal screening results. This is especially problematic for women aged 50 to 64, who are less likely to screen for either cancer alone compared to other age groups.

Currently, 86% of women in the United States are up to date with cervical cancer screening, and 64% are up to date with colorectal cancer screening. However, it is not clear how many women in this age group receive both screens, compared to a single screen or neither screen.

Harper et al. analyzed data from over 40,000 women aged 50 to 64, collected in a United States health survey in 2018. This study revealed that only 59% of the women reported being up to date with cervical and colorectal cancer screenings. Compared to women who did not screen at all, women completing both screens were more educated, had higher incomes, and were more likely to have other chronic conditions such as arthritis, diabetes, depression and other cancers.

These findings reveal that the number of women aged 50 to 64 in the United States, who are up to date with both cancer screenings, is still well below national targets. Harper et al. propose that shifting towards a women-centric focus, with primary care physicians or health care systems responsible for managing screening efforts, could decrease cancer incidence and mortality. In future, self-test kits for both cancers should help encourage more women to have both screens in a comfortable environment. This change in focus will also allow primary care physicians to notify women at appropriate intervals to attend routine screening and immediate follow-ups in the case of abnormal results.

Long-term conditions among sexual minority adults in England: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis of responses to the English GP Patient Survey

Background

Epidemiological evidence for specific long-term conditions is required to inform best practices regarding the substantial health inequalities experienced by sexual minority individuals compared with heterosexual peers.

Aim

To describe inequalities in long-term conditions among sexual minority (lesbian, gay, and bisexual [LGB]) adults.

Design & setting

Cross-sectional analysis of 1 341 339 nationally representative survey responses from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS).

Method

Stratifying by sex, the weighted prevalence and covariate-adjusted association of 15 long-term conditions were calculated, comparing sexual minority and heterosexual adults, considering variation by sexual orientation and variation in sexual orientation inequalities by deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age.

Results

After adjusting for deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age, 13 long-term conditions (all except cancer and hypertension) were more prevalent among sexual minority women than their heterosexual peers, with the largest inequalities for mental health problems (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7 to 3.0), neurological conditions (OR 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.8), dementia (OR 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.9), and back problems (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5). It was found that nine long-term conditions were also more prevalent among sexual minority men including mental health problems (OR 2.3, 95% CI = 2.2 to 2.4), 'all other conditions' (OR 1.8, 95% CI = 1.7 to 1.8), neurological conditions (OR 1.5, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.6), and kidney or liver disease (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5); inequalities were often largest for bisexual adults. Inequalities did not vary significantly by deprivation, ethnic group, or region except for mental health problems. Inequalities in multimorbidity were highest at younger ages; for example, LGB women aged 18–24 years had multimorbidity at the same level (approximately 20%) as heterosexual women aged 45–54 years.

Conclusion

Sexual minority adults, especially bisexual adults, are at elevated risk for many long-term conditions and multimorbidity; this risk spans socioeconomic status and ethnic group, representing a significant healthcare challenge.

Using UK Biobank for sexual minority health research

Aim: Despite poorer health and healthcare outcomes experienced by lesbian, gay and bisexual adults, data for research to characterize and address these disparities remain limited. Patients & methods: We describe sexual history information from 502,543 UK Biobank participants recruited between 2006 and 2010, as sexual identity was not collected from the cohort at baseline, and compare this with sexual history and sexual identity responses to the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (NATSAL-3), collected between 2010 and 2012. Results: After exclusions, 700 (0.3%) women and 2112 (1.2%) men in UK Biobank reported a history of exclusively same-sex sex and 5162 (2.3%) women and 4275 (2.3%) men reported a history of sex with both women and men; estimates were consistent with, although slightly lower those from NATSAL-3. Conclusion: UK Biobank is an important resource for sexual minority health research.