Barriers and Facilitators to Cancer Screening Among LGBTQ Individuals With Cancer

Medical student clinical cultural awareness in cancer care of sexual gender minority patients

OBJECTIVE

Health disparities in lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+), or sexual and gender minority (SGM) people are known. SGM people have higher cancer risk, but lower rates of screenings, resulting in a higher likelihood of late-stage disease. This study evaluates medical students' clinical cultural awareness in cancer care of SGM patients to identify gaps in education.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional survey distributed to medical students at a academic center. There were 38 questions on demographics, attitudes, and knowledge of SGM topics. Descriptive statistics were used for demographic information and stratified analyses assessed responses by demographic subgroups.

RESULTS

There were 238 responses from 1145 students (response rate = 20.7 %). Of the responders, 91.2 % and 79 % were comfortable treating lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) and transgender patients respectively. Only 28.6 % and 21.8 % were confident treating LGB and transgender patients respectively after taking the survey. 91.2 % of students were interested receiving education regarding SGM health needs.

CONCLUSION

While most medical students are comfortable treating LGBTQ+ patients, most are not confident in their knowledge. This difference is most profound in knowledge of transgender patients.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Schools must provide more education in SGM topics to improve student knowledge to produce competent providers.

A Multistakeholder Qualitative Study to Inform Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in the Cancer Care Setting

Purpose: Sexual and gender minoritized (SGM) populations face health disparities along the cancer care continuum, although attempts to define these disparities are limited by a lack of comprehensive sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data collection. The objective of this study was to interview a diverse group of stakeholders to understand attitudes, barriers, and facilitators to inform data collection approaches in a cancer care setting. Methods: This was a qualitative study conducted from March to July 2023 with paired surveys of stakeholders including patients, caregivers, providers, and cancer registry staff. Twenty participants across these categories, including half who identified as SGM, completed surveys and interviews. Qualitative data were reduced to themes with exemplar quotations using rapid qualitative analysis methods and compared to survey data. Results: Themes revealed general support for SOGI data collection as part of holistic cancer care, and all participants acknowledged that specific SOGI-related information, particularly correct pronoun usage, was essential to inform patient-centered care. Themes revealed tensions around optimal SOGI data collection methods, mixed opinions on the relevance of sexual orientation, experiences of discrimination and discomfort related to SOGI, and limited acknowledgment of population benefits of SOGI data collection. Conclusion: Themes demonstrated overall support for SOGI data collection but also revealed several barriers, such as a lack of recognition of population benefits and experiences of discrimination and discomfort, that will need to be addressed to comprehensively collect these data. Based on diverse preferences and limitations of all methods of collection, a multimodal approach may be needed to optimize completion.

Cancer Screening and Prevention in the Transgender and Gender Diverse Population: Considerations and Strategies for Advanced Practice Nurses

OBJECTIVES

This discussion paper presents recent evidence regarding cancer screening and prevention among the transgender and gender diverse (TGD) community and highlights where and how advanced practice nurses (APNs), particularly those in primary care, can better contribute to closing the gap between healthcare disparities between TGD and cisgendered populations.

METHODS

Relevant publications on the topic and professional guidelines and evidence have formed the basis for this discussion paper.

RESULTS

TGD individuals are a vulnerable population with unique needs. They remain at risk of cancer and might be at greater risk of developing some cancers compared to cisgendered people but are underscreened. Barriers to gender-affirming care need to be addressed to improve access to prevention and screening services and improve the cancer care experiences and outcomes of TGD people.

CONCLUSION

APNs can work in collaboration with TGD individuals and the healthcare system to improve access to culturally safe cancer screening and more effective prevention of cancer and poor cancer outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

APNs have the potential to improve access to cancer screening for TGD people by increasing their understanding of the needs of the population, providing culturally safe care, and advocating for more preventative care and cancer screening. With greater knowledge and understanding of the needs and preferences of TGD people both broadly and in relation to cancer screening and prevention, targeted interventions and care approaches can be implemented. APNs should also aim to conduct evaluations and research into cancer prevention and screening to build the currently limited evidence base and nursing knowledge in this important field.

Relationships Among Determinants of Health, Cancer Screening Participation, and Sexual Minority Identity: A Systematic Review

Purpose: To address cancer screening disparities and reduce cancer risk among sexual minority (SM) groups, this review identifies individual, interpersonal, and community/societal determinants of cancer screening (non)participation among differing SM identities. Methods: Seven scientific databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) used quantitative methods; (2) English language; (3) cancer screening focus; and (4) at least one SM group identified. Articles were excluded if: (1) analysis was not disaggregated by SM identity (n = 29) and (2) quantitative analysis excluded determinants of cancer screening (n = 19). The Sexual and Gender Minority Health Disparities Research Framework guided literature synthesis. Results: Twelve studies addressed cervical (n = 4), breast (n = 3), breast/cervical (n = 3), or multiple cancers (n = 2). Other cancers were excluded due to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The total sample was 20,622 (mean 1525), including lesbian (n = 13,409), bisexual (n = 4442), gay (n = 1386), mostly heterosexual (n = 1302), and queer (n = 83) identities. Studies analyzing individual-level determinants (n = 8) found that socioeconomic status affected cervical, but not breast, cancer screening among lesbian and bisexual participants (n = 2). At the interpersonal level (n = 7), provider-patient relationship was a determinant of cervical cancer screening among lesbian participants (n = 4); a relationship not studied for other groups. Studies analyzing community/societal determinants (n = 5) found that rurality potentially affected cervical cancer screening among lesbian, but not bisexual people (n = 3). Conclusions: This review identified socioeconomic status, provider-patient relationship, and rurality as determinants affecting cancer screening among SM people. While literature addresses diverse SM groups, inclusion/exclusion criteria identified studies addressing cisgender women. Addressing disparities in the identified determinants of cervical cancer screening may improve participation among SM women. Further research is needed to understand determinants of cancer screening unique to other SM groups.

"For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022

BACKGROUND

Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems.

CONCLUSION

We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.

Imagining Improved Interactions: Patients' Designs To Address Implicit Bias

Implicit biases may negatively influence healthcare providers' behaviors toward patients from historically marginalized communities, impacting providers' communication style, clinical decision-making, and delivery of quality care. Existing interventions to mitigate negative experiences of implicit biases are primarily designed to increase recognition and management of stereotypes and prejudices through provider-facing tools and resources. However, there is a gap in understanding and designing interventions from patient perspectives. We conducted seven participatory co-design workshops with 32 Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC), Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ+), and Queer, Transgender, Black, Indigenous, People of Color (QTBIPOC) individuals to design patient-centered interventions that help them address and recover from provider implicit biases in primary care. Participants designed four types of solutions: accountability measures, real-time correction, patient enablement tools, and provider resources. These informatics interventions extend the research on implicit biases in healthcare through inclusion of valuable, firsthand patient perspectives and experiences.

Gaps in Adhering to Pap Testing Recommendations and Related Barriers in a Sample of Young Adults in the US

Given ongoing gaps in adherence to Pap testing recommendations, this study examined: 1) adherence to Pap test screening recommendations; and 2) barriers to Pap test screening among those who were nonadherent, using constructs from the Andersen model. We analyzed Spring 2022 survey data among 541 US young adults who reported having a cervix (n = 541; mean age = 27.73, 42.1% heterosexual, 57.9% sexual minority, 86.0% woman, 3.7% transgender man, 68.2% White, 31.8% racial/ethnic minority). Multivariable logistic regression examined sociodemographic correlates of nonadherence to Pap testing recommendations (i.e., no Pap testing in the past 3 years). Among those who were nonadherent, barriers to Pap testing were assessed. 68.6% (n = 371) were defined as adherent and 31.4% (n = 170) nonadherent. Multivariable regression findings indicated significant differences by race/ethnicity such that Asians (vs. Whites) were more likely to be nonadherent (OR = 2.41, CI = 1.11, 3.70, p = .021); no other differences in relation to race/ethnicity or sexual/gender identity were found. The most commonly reported barriers were: "I have not gotten around to it" (42.9%), "getting a Pap test is just not a priority for me" (30.6%), "fear/worry" (28.2%), "dislike/don't like having procedures done" (27.1%), "my healthcare provider has never mentioned it" (21.2%), "haven't had sex so I don't consider myself at high risk" (20.6%), and "COVID-19 pandemic prevented me" (15.3%). Pap testing is underutilized among young adults in the US, particularly Asians. Multilevel interventions must address barriers within the healthcare system (e.g., provider recommendation), external environment (e.g., societal factors), and individual realm (e.g., perceptions).

Mapping gender and sexual minority representation in cancer research: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Addressing the risk of people from gender and sexual minority (GSM) groups experiencing inequities throughout the cancer continuum requires a robust evidence base. In this scoping review, we aim to map the literature on cancer outcomes among adults from GSM groups and the factors that influence them along the cancer continuum.

METHODS

This mixed-methods scoping review will follow the approach outlined by JBI. We will systematically search electronic databases for literature in collaboration with a health sciences librarian. Two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts to determine eligibility based on inclusion criteria, and then retrieve full text articles for data extraction. Results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Quantitative data will be qualitized through a narrative interpretation and pooled with qualitative data. We will use meta-aggregation to synthesize findings. This protocol was developed in collaboration with GSM patient and public advisors. We will engage people from GSM groups, community organizations and knowledge users in disseminating results.

INTERPRETATION

This review will direct future research efforts by expanding the wider body of research examining cancer disparities across the cancer continuum that GSM groups experience, identifying literature gaps and limitations, and highlighting relevant social determinants of health that influence cancer outcomes for adults from GSM groups.

Survey of Clinical Providers and Allied Health Staff at a National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center: Cultural Awareness in the Care of LGBTQ2S + Patients with Cancer

To identify potential gaps in attitudes, knowledge, and practices towards LGBTQ2S + patients with a cancer diagnosis, a survey of clinical providers (CP) and allied health staff (AHS) was conducted to identify areas of improvement and guide development for future education and training. A previously published, validated survey was adapted at the direction of a LGBTQ2S + Patient and Family Advisory Council, and modified to include AHS. The survey was disseminated to all faculty and staff, and was adapted to the participants' self-identified level of patient interaction/care responsibilities. Subsections consisted of questions related to demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors towards participating in the care of LGBTQ2S + patients. Results were quantified using stratified analysis and an attitude summary measure. Of the 311 respondents, 179 self-identified as CPs and 132 as AHS. There was high agreement in comfort treating or assisting LGBTQ2S + patients by CP and AHS respondents, respectively. CPs possessed significantly higher knowledge regarding LGBTQ2S + health when compared to AHS; however, there remained high percentages of "neutral" and "do not know or prefer not to answer" responses regardless of clinical role. There was high agreement regarding the importance of knowing a patient's gender identity (GI) and pronouns (CP vs. AHS; 76.9% vs. 73.5% and 89.4% vs. 84.1%, respectively), whereas patient's sexual orientation and sex assigned at birth (CP vs. AHS; 51.1% vs. 53.5% and 58.6% vs. 62.9%, respectively) were viewed as less important. There was high interest in receiving education regarding the unique needs of LGBTQ2S + patients regardless of clinical role. Stratified analyses of CPs revealed early-career physicians (< 1-5 years from graduation) expressed higher interest in additional education and involvement with LGBTQ2S + -focused trainings when compared to mid- and late-career providers. This is the first study, to our knowledge, assessing the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of CPs and AHS regarding the care of LGBTQ2S + patients with cancer. Overall, there was high comfort treating/assisting LGBTQ2S + patients among CP and AHS respondents, respectively; yet, both groups possessed significant gaps in LGBTQ2S + -focused knowledge.

For the LOvE of Reproductive Health Communication: Assessment of the LGBT Oncofertility Education (LOvE) Module

Purpose: The lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) Oncofertility Education (LOvE) module aims to improve knowledge on providing inclusive and affirming care for LGBTQ adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer. The objective of this study is to evaluate the role of the module in improving reproductive health communication for the care of LGBTQ AYAs with cancer. Methods: A 10-item multiple-choice pre-test and post-test assessed learner knowledge, with total knowledge scores ranging from 0 (no correct responses) to 10 (all correct responses). A post-module survey and open-ended questions assessed relevance of the module, quality, and appropriateness to professional practice. Paired t-tests analyzed changes in knowledge before and after the module. Content analysis was applied to qualitative responses. Results: Thirty-seven learners completed both the pre-test and post-test. Around 8.1% correctly answered all pre-test questions; 59.5% correctly answered all posttest questions. The average pre-test score was 8.3, versus posttest score of 9.5 (p < 0.0001). Eighty-nine percent of learners strongly agreed that LOvE Enriching Communication Skills for Health Professionals in Oncofertility was relevant to their work; 95% strongly agreed that it was easy to understand and navigate. Open-ended responses highlighted how the module helped learners strengthen the provider-patient relationship in the context of oncofertility, create a safe space for patients, and understand the relevance of educational materials about fertility to LGBTQ patients. Conclusions: We found significant improvement in knowledge of reproductive health care for LGBTQ AYAs with cancer after completing the module. Improving provider knowledge may improve confidence in providing inclusive and affirming care for LGBTQ AYAs with cancer, resulting in improved whole-person care.

Cultural Competence in the Care of LGBTQ+ Patients: A Primer for Breast/Chest Centers

The number of individuals identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) has doubled over the past 10 years, and this figure continues to rise. The LGBTQ+ community is diverse, encompassing a vast array of differences in gender identity and sexual orientation. Additionally, it is inclusive of people from all races, ethnicities, religions, and socioeconomic backgrounds. This intersectionality of identities and experiences impacts both access to health care and its delivery. Barriers to care for this population are multifactorial and include stigma, discrimination, bias, limited role models, issues with insurance coverage, lack of education and training for health care providers, and lack of research on LGBTQ+ health-related issues. Specific to breast cancer, the screening recommendations for this group are influenced not only by risk but also by gender-affirming hormonal and surgical therapies. This article will provide an overview of the LGBTQ+ population, review breast cancer screening compliance and recommendations, summarize the multitude of health disparities, and offer potential interventions to improve care delivery at the individual, facility, organizational, and health policy levels.

Healthcare discrimination and treatment adherence among sexual and gender minority individuals living with chronic illness: the mediating effects of anticipated discrimination and depressive symptoms

Background: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals are at increased risk for an array of chronic illness due to minority stress. Up to 70% of SGM individuals report healthcare discrimination, which may cause additional challenges for SGM people living with chronic illness including avoiding necessary healthcare. The extant literature highlights how healthcare discrimination is associated with depressive symptoms and treatment nonadherence. However, there is limited evidence on the underlying mechanisms between healthcare discrimination and treatment adherence among SGM people living with chronic illness.Methods: Among a sample of SGM individuals living with chronic illness (n = 149) recruited from social media, the current study examined the mediating roles of anticipated discrimination and depressive symptoms on the relation between healthcare discrimination and treatment adherence in a serial mediation model.Results: We found that healthcare discrimination was associated with greater anticipated discrimination, increased depressive symptoms, and, in turn, poorer treatment adherence. Conclusion: These findings highlight the association between minority stress and both depressive symptoms and treatment adherence among SGM individuals living with chronic illness. Addressing institutional discrimination and the consequences of minority stress may improve treatment adherence among SGM individuals living with chronic illness.

Investigating the Joint Effect of Allostatic Load among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults with Risk of Cancer Mortality

Sexual minorities (SM) have higher chronic physiologic stress as indicated by allostatic load (AL), which may be explained in part by consistent experiences of discriminatory practices. This is one of the first studies to examine the joint effects of SM status and AL on the association with long-term risk for cancer death. Retrospective analyses were conducted on 12,470 participants using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from years 2001 through 2010 linked with the National Death Index through December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of cancer deaths between groups of SM (those reporting as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or having same-sex sexual partners) status and AL. SM adults living with high AL (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.40-4.65) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults living with low AL (n = 6674). Among those living with high AL, SM (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.33-3.84) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults with high AL (n = 4957). SM with high AL have an increased risk of cancer mortality. These findings highlight important implications for promoting a focused agenda on cancer prevention with strategies that reduce chronic stress for SM adults.

Perioperative Oncology Health Care Providers and Transgender Health: A Single-Institution Survey to Gauge Attitudes, Knowledge, Behaviors, and Education

Purpose

Patients identifying as transgender report that a lack of access to providers with trans-specific medical knowledge represents one of the largest barriers to equitable health care access. Through an institutional survey, we assessed and analyzed the attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and education of perioperative clinical staff when caring for transgender patients with cancer.

Methods

A web-based survey was distributed to 1100 perioperative clinical staff at the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in New York City between January 14, 2020, and February 28, 2020, and received 276 responses. The survey instrument consisted of 42 nondemographic questions about attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and education regarding transgender health care and 14 demographic questions. Questions were presented as a mix of Yes/No, free text response, and a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

Certain demographic groups (younger, lesbian, gay, or bisexual [LGB], fewer years employment at the institution) held more favorable attitudes toward the transgender population and were more knowledgeable regarding their health needs. Respondents underreported the rates of mental illness and risk factors for cancer like HIV and substance use among the transgender population. A greater proportion of respondents identifying as LGB endorsed witnessing an interaction wherein a colleague exhibited attitudes/beliefs about the transgender population that were barriers to care. Only 23.2% of respondents were ever trained on the health needs of transgender patients.

Conclusion

There is a need for institutions to assess the cultural competency of perioperative clinical staff toward transgender health, especially within certain demographics. This survey may inform quality education initiatives to eliminate biases and knowledge gaps.

Increasing Diversity of Patients in Radiation Oncology Clinical Trials

Radiation oncology clinical trials lack full representation of the ethnic and racial diversity present in the general United States and in the cancer patient population. There are low rates of both recruitment and enrollment of individuals from underrepresented ethnic and racial backgrounds, especially Black and Hispanic patients, people with disabilities, and patients from underrepresented sexual and gender groups. Even if approached for enrollment, barriers such as mistrust in medical research stemming from historical abuse and contemporary biased systems, low socioeconomic status, and lack of awareness prohibit historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical trials. In this review, we reflect on these specific barriers and detail approaches to increase diversity of the patient population in radiation oncology clinical trials to better reflect the communities we serve. We hope that implementation of these approaches will increase the diversity of clinical trials patient populations in not only radiation oncology but also other medical specialties.

Primary care provider interventions for addressing cancer screening participation with marginalised patients: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Cancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.

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.

Health inequities in mammography: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to chart the existing evidence on health inequities related to mammography and identify existing knowledge gaps to guide future research.

METHODS

This scoping review followed guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. In July 2022, we searched PubMed and Ovid Embase for published articles on mammography screening, published between 2011 and 2021, written in English, and examining at least one health inequity as defined by the NIH. Screening and charting were both performed in a masked, duplicate manner. Frequencies of each health inequity examined were analyzed and main findings from each included study were summarized.

RESULTS

Following screening, our sample consisted of 128 studies. Our findings indicate that mammography screening was less likely in historically marginalized groups, patients who live in rural areas, and in women with low income status and education level. Significant research gaps were observed regarding the LGBTQ + community and sex and gender. No trends between inequities investigated over time were identified.

DISCUSSION

This scoping review highlights the gaps in inequities research regarding mammography, as well as the limited consensus across findings. To bridge existing research gaps, we recommend research into the following: 1) assessments of physician knowledge on the LGBTQ + community guidelines, 2) tools for health literacy, and 3) culturally competent screening models.

Results from an LGBTQ+ Community Health Needs Assessment in Nassau and Suffolk Counties of New York State

LGBTQ+ individuals experience health care disparities and difficulty accessing affirming care. Little is known regarding the health and experiences among subpopulations of specific sexual orientations and gender identities (SOGI). We implemented the first LGBTQ + health needs assessment survey in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York, to assess individuals' health care experiences, behaviors, access to care, and health care needs. The sample (N = 1150) consisted of many SOGI subgroups. Greater than 60% of respondents reported symptoms of chronic depression; over one third reported disrespectful health care experiences; and two thirds experienced verbal harassment. Bisexual/bicurious, pansexual, queer, gender nonconforming and transgender individuals experienced highest rates of mental health concerns and difficulty accessing care. Behavioral health concerns were also high among Black, multiracial, Hispanic, Asian, young adult, and lower-income respondents. Gaining an understanding of unique differences among LGBTQ+ subgroups can guide implementation of services targeting specific subpopulations to improve access to care and reduce disparities.

A Learning Health System Approach to Cancer Survivorship Care Among LGBTQ+ Communities

PURPOSE

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) individuals who receive primary care services at community health centers are often referred to external specialty care centers after cancer diagnosis, upon which primary care services are disrupted and may be discontinued because of gaps in communication between primary and oncologic care providers. This qualitative study evaluated barriers and facilitators to effective care coordination for LGBTQ+ patients with cancer and the utility of a novel cancer care coordination tool to mitigate identified barriers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Semistructured interviews with LGBTQ+ cancer survivors, caregivers to LGBTQ+ persons, clinical team members who provide care to LGBTQ+ patients, and members of community-based organizations that work with LGBTQ+ patients were conducted. Interview analysis was a multistage process, wherein a constant comparison approach was used. Transcripts were reviewed and coded using Atlas.ti Cloud.

RESULTS

A total of 26 individuals were interviewed: 10 patients, four caregivers, 10 clinical care team members, and two community organization representatives. Interview analysis yielded insight regarding (1) LGBTQ+ patient experiences engaging with primary and oncologic care at the clinic level and (2) perceptions of patient-provider and provider-provider communication and coordination.

CONCLUSION

Interview findings indicate a need for further development of interventions aimed at improving care coordination, patient experience, and outcomes in the cancer care continuum for LGBTQ+ patients. Learning health systems, like the one studied, show great potential for contributing to the development of such interventions.

Physically fit with a higher cancer risk? Influences of cervical cancer screening among a sample of physically active women ages 21-49 living in the United States

To achieve the lowest risk level for various cancers, individuals would engage in several healthy lifestyle behaviors and age-eligible cancer screenings as recommended. Nonetheless, research has largely omitted exploration of concurrent primary and secondary prevention behaviors. This study was designed to explore influences of cervical cancer screening among physically active women who reported participation in recreational sports. U.S. based women between the ages of 21-49, who had never been diagnosed with cancer, were eligible to complete a web-based survey. Logistic regression analyses were conducted using SAS 9.4. On average, women were 31 years of age (N = 394) and self-identified as Black (51.3 %). Although low overall (30.7 %), higher odds of cervical cancer screening were associated with age (OR = 1.06, 95 % CI = 1.03-1.10), employment (OR = 2.43, 95 % CI = 1.14-5.18), knowledge of cancer-related risk behaviors (OR = 4.04, 95 % CI = 1.33-12.28), routine doctor's visit (OR = 4.25, 95 % CI = 1.56-11.54), and team-based vs individual-based sport participation (OR = 1.95, 95 % CI = 1.13-3.34). Our study provides insight into the health profile of physically active women, ages 21-49, as it relates to risks for cervical cancer. Screening uptake among this diverse sample was much lower than the general population and national goals set by Healthy People 2030. Interventions should be tailored to increase knowledge of cancer-related risk behaviors, access to healthcare, and recommended cervical cancer screenings among even assumed-to-be healthy populations.

Impacts of psychological wellbeing with HIV/AIDS and cancer among sexual and gender minorities: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The agony and economic strain of cancer and HIV/AIDS therapies severely impact patients' psychological wellbeing. Meanwhile, sexual minorities experience discrimination and mental illness. LGBT individuals with cancer and HIV/AIDS play two roles. It is important to understand and examine this groups mental wellbeing.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to synthesize current studies on the impact of HIV/AIDS and cancer on LGBT patients' psychological wellbeing.

Methods

This research uses a systematic literature review at first and later stage a meta-analysis was run on the same review. In this study, data from Google academic and Web of Science has been used to filter literature. PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram seeks research on LGBT cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. The above sites yielded 370 related papers, some of which were removed due to age or inaccuracy. Finally, meta-analyses was done on 27 HIV/AIDS and 33 cancer patients's analyse.

Results

The research included 9,898 LGBT cancer sufferers with AIDS and 14,465 cancer sufferers with HIV/AIDS. Using meta-analysis, we discovered the gap in psychological wellbeing scores between HIV/AIDS LGBT and non-LGBT groups ranged from -10.86 to 15.63. The overall score disparity between the HIV/AIDS LGBT and non-LGBT groups was 1.270 (95% CI = 0.990-1.560, Z = 86.58, P < 0.1). The disparity in psychological wellbeing scores between cancer LGBT group and general group varies from -8.77 to 20.94 in the 34 papers examined in this study. Overall, the psychological wellbeing score disparity between the cancer LGBT subset and the general group was 12.48 (95% CI was 10.05-14.92, Test Z-value was 268.40, P-value was <0.1).

Conclusion

Inflammation and fibrosis in HIV/AIDS and cancer sufferers adversely affect their psychological wellbeing.

Maybe they had a bad day: how LGBTQ and BIPOC patients react to bias in healthcare and struggle to speak out

OBJECTIVE

People who experience marginalization, including Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus (ie, all other marginalized genders and sexual orientations) people (LGBTQ+) experience discrimination during healthcare interactions, which negatively impacts patient-provider communication and care. Yet, scarce research examines the lived experience of unfair treatment among patients from marginalized groups to guide patient-centered tools that improve healthcare equity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We interviewed 25 BIPOC and/or LGBTQ+ people about their experiences of unfair treatment and discrimination when visiting healthcare providers. Through thematic analysis, we describe participants' immediate reactions and longer-term consequences of those experiences.

RESULTS

We identified 4 ways that participants reacted to discrimination in the moment: Fighting, Fleeing, Excusing, and Working Around Bias. Long-term consequences reflect 6 ways they coped: Delaying or Avoiding Care, Changing Healthcare Providers, Self-prescribing, Covering Behaviors, Experiencing Health Complications, and Mistrusting Healthcare Institutions.

DISCUSSION

By describing how patients react to experiences of unfair treatment and discrimination, our findings enhance the understanding of health disparities as patients cope and struggle to speak out.To combat these problems, we identify 3 future directions for informatics interventions that improve provider behavior, support patient advocacy, and address power dynamics in healthcare.

CONCLUSIONS

BIPOC and LGBTQ+ patients' perspectives on navigating unfair treatment and discrimination in healthcare offers critical insight into their experiences and long-term consequences of those experiences. Understanding the circumstances and consequences of unfair treatment, discrimination, and the impact of bias through this patient-centered lens is crucial to inform informatics technologies that promote health equity.

Examining the relationship between household wealth and colorectal cancer screening behaviors among U.S. men aged 45-75

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death among men in the United States (U.S.), particularly among men aged 45 years and older. Early-detection screening remains a key method of decreasing CRC-related deaths, yet socioeconomic barriers exist to planning and completing CRC screening. While accumulating evidence shows income disparities in CRC screening prevalence, a dearth of research has investigated wealth disparities. This study aimed to determine whether household wealth was associated with CRC screening uptake and future screening intent. In February 2022, we sent an online survey to potential participants; U.S. men aged 45–75 years were eligible to participate. We examined four CRC screening behaviors as outcomes: ever completing a stool-based or exam-based screening test, current screening status, and future screening intent. Household net wealth, determined by self-reported household wealth and debt, was the primary predictor. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence interval (CI). Of the study participants (N = 499), most self-identified as Non-Hispanic White, were aged 50–64 years, and had previously completed a CRC screening test. Results revealed that, among men aged 45–49 years, higher net wealth decreased the odds of ever completing a stool- or exam-based test (OR = 0.58, 95% CI: 0.33, 0.98; OR = 0.55, 95% CI: 0.31, 0.94, respectively). By contrast, among men aged 50–75 years, higher net wealth increased the odds of being current with CRC screening (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.92). Net wealth was unassociated with CRC screening intent. These findings suggest that household net wealth, rather than income, is an important socioeconomic factor to consider in relation to uptake of CRC early-detection screening. The financial and social cognitive mechanisms linking household wealth to CRC screening behaviors merit future research and intervention.

•

Wealth was associated with U.S men's adherence to screening for colorectal cancer.

•

Age modified the association between wealth and colorectal cancer screening uptake.

•

Wealth reduced the odds of past colorectal screening completion for men 45–49 years.

Cytology and LGBT+ health: establishing inclusive cancer screening programs

There are substantial disparities in cancer screening for sexual minorities and gender non-conforming patients. In additional to patients having trauma due to negative experiences with the healthcare system, disparities may be heightened due to heteronormative and cisnormative design of screening programs and electronic medical record systems. Furthermore, there are morphologic challenges specific to certain specimen types from the LGBT + population, such as anal cytology samples, cervical cytology from transgender men taking testosterone, and neovaginal cytology samples. Men who have sex with men are at increased risk for anal cancer compared with the general population. While early detection of anal dysplasia decreases the risk of invasive carcinoma, screening programs are not widespread. Cervical cancer screening may be psychologically and physically challenging for transgender men and non-binary patients. The use of exogenous testosterone therapy causes atrophic changes in cervical cytology samples which mimic high-grade dysplasia. The rate of unsatisfactory samples are also increased in this population. Although HPV driven cancers have been reported in patients with neovaginas, there are currently no guidelines about appropriate screening for transgender women and intersex patients who have neovaginas. Cytopathologists can optimize the health of LGBT + patients in many ways including advocating for inclusive screening guidelines, validating self-collection for HPV and cytology samples, updating requisition forms to better capture the spectrum of gender expression, and recognizing the morphologic changes in cytology samples due to exogenous hormone use.

“I need more knowledge”: Qualitative analysis of oncology providers’ experiences with sexual and gender minority patients

Background

While societal acceptance for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals is increasing, this group continues to face barriers to quality healthcare. Little is known about clinicians’ experiences with SGM patients in the oncology setting. To address this, a mixed method survey was administered to members of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group.

Materials and methods

We report results from the open-ended portion of the survey. Four questions asked clinicians to describe experiences with SGM patients, reservations in caring for them, suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care, and additional comments. Data were analyzed using content analysis and the constant comparison method.

Results

The majority of respondents noted they had no or little familiarity with SGM patients. A minority of respondents noted experience with gay and lesbian patients, but not transgender patients; many who reported experience with transgender patients also noted difficulty navigating the correct use of pronouns. Many respondents also highlighted positive experiences with SGM patients. Suggestions for improvement in SGM cancer care included providing widespread training, attending to unique end-of-life care issues among SGM patients, and engaging in efforts to build trust.

Conclusion

Clinicians have minimal experiences with SGM patients with cancer but desire training. Training the entire workforce may improve trust with, outreach efforts to, and cancer care delivery to the SGM community.

Medical Students' Perspectives on LGBTQI+ Healthcare and Education in Germany: Results of a Nationwide Online Survey

The healthcare needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) persons are often overlooked, prompting national and international calls to include diversity-related competencies into medical students' training. However, LGBTQI+-focused healthcare education targets remain elusive, as surveys reveal considerable variability across national student populations. To generate empirical data and vocalize recommendations for medical education, we conducted the first nationwide online survey among 670 German medical students from 33 universities. Overall, most respondents reported low confidence regarding their medical training preparing them for LGBTQI+ patients, stated that LGBTQI+ themes were not covered during training, and agreed that the inclusion of such themes is urgently needed. In addition, we found gender and LGBTQI+ community member status to be key variables. Men scored lower in knowledge than women, while community members scored higher than non-community members. Similarly, community members reported higher comfort levels. Non-community men showed the highest levels of prejudice and efficacy beliefs, while at the same time had the lowest scores in contacts and the perceived importance of LGBTQI+-related teaching. Keeping subgroup differences in mind, we recommend that educational training should include LGBTQI+ healthcare aspects and address self-efficacy beliefs in future medical professionals to overcome LGBTQI+ healthcare disparities.

Approaches for Measuring Inclusive Demographics Across Youth Enjoy Science Cancer Research Training Programs

The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Youth Enjoy Science Program (YES) funds initiatives to support the cancer research training and career ambitions of middle school through undergraduate students from populations underrepresented in the biomedical sciences. The program has funded 16 institutions nationally as of January 2022. Given the program's focus on increasing diversity within the cancer research workforce, demographic characteristics of YES trainees provide essential information about the populations being served and program effectiveness. Six programs formed an interest group focused on trainee demographics and surveyed all YES grantees about their demographic data practices. Fifteen programs (94%) completed the survey. Survey data were analyzed through descriptive statistics and thematic coding. Findings revealed considerable variability in programs' approach to demographic data, including which demographics were measured, how they were operationalized, and when and how the data were collected. Half of YES programs (53%) could report underrepresented populations in biomedical research among trainees using consistent definitions. Most programs described efforts to improve their demographic data practices; however, challenges remained for the vast majority. In consideration of these findings, we offer recommendations for inclusive demographic data practices to better define and retain underrepresented populations in biomedical sciences.

Gender- and Sexual Orientation- Based Inequities: Promoting Inclusion, Visibility, and Data Accuracy in Oncology

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) people, including agender, asexual, bisexual, gay, gender diverse, genderqueer, genderfluid, intersex, lesbian, nonbinary, pansexual, queer, and transgender people, comprise approximately 10% or more of the U.S. population. Thus, most oncologists see SGM patients whether they know it or not. SGM people experience stigma and structural discrimination that lead to cancer disparities. Because of the lack of systematic and comprehensive data collection, data regarding SGM cancer incidence, outcomes, and treatment responses are limited. Collection of data regarding sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender identity and/or experience, anatomy, and serum hormone concentrations in oncology settings would drastically increase collective knowledge about the impact of stigma and biologic markers on cancer outcomes. Increasing the safety of oncology settings for SGM people will require individual, institutional, and systems changes that will likely improve oncologic care for all patients.

Cervical Cancer Risk and Prevention Practices Among Sexual Minority Women with Criminal-Legal System Involvement

Women with criminal-legal system involvement bear a disproportionate burden of cervical cancer, indeed 4-5 times more than women without criminal-legal system involvement. While we also know that sexual minority identification (lesbian/gay, queer, bisexual, or not straight) is more common among women with criminal-legal system involvement, we lack understanding of the cervical cancer risk and prevention practices of this group of women. In 2019-2020, we used surveys to investigate cervical cancer risk and prevention practices among 510 women with criminal-legal system involvement in Kansas City (KS and MO), Oakland (CA), and Birmingham (AL). In a secondary data analysis, we compared sexual minority women (SMW defined as women who identified as lesbian/gay, bisexual, or other -19% of the sample) to women who identified as heterosexual or straight - 81% of sample). SMW were less likely to have ever gotten a cervical cancer screening test, compared to straight women. Having a provider whom women felt they could rely on was associated with having an up-to-date cervical cancer screening test among SMW. SMW with criminal-legal system involvement are missing out on necessary cancer screenings. Further study to understand why and interventions to ensure this group receives preventive care are needed to prevent cervical cancer and reduce disparities.

An Evaluation of Sex- and Gender-Based Analyses in Oncology Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex- and gender-based analyses and proper sex- and gender-terminology were used in oncology trials leading to regulatory drug approval.

METHODS

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hematology/Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications page was used to identify all anti-cancer therapies that received FDA approval between 2012 and 2019. The trials used to support FDA-drug approval were collected along with all available supplemental tables and study protocols. Documents were reviewed to determine if there was a plan to analyze results according to sex and gender and to determine if consistent sex and gender terminology were used.

RESULTS

128 randomized-controlled trials were identified corresponding to a cancer medicine which received FDA-approval. No study specified how sex and gender were collected or analyzed. No study reported any information on the gender of participants. Sex and gender terminology was used inconsistently at least once in 76% (97/128) of studies. Among the 102 trials for non-sex-specific cancer sites, 89% (91/102) presented disaggregated survival outcome data by sex. No study presented disaggregated toxicity data by sex or gender.

CONCLUSION

The majority of pivotal clinical trials in oncology fail to account for the important distinction between sex and gender and conflate sex and gender terminology. More rigor in designing clinical trials to include sex and gender based analyses and more care in using sex and gender terms in the cancer literature is needed. These efforts are essential to improve the reproducibility, generalizability, and inclusiveness of cancer research.

Gesundheitliche Themen von LSBTIQ+Personen in der ärztlichen Ausbildung in Deutschland

AIMS

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, intersex and queer (LGBTIQ +) persons continue to experience discrimination and disadvantage in many areas of life, including healthcare. Studies indicate that LGBTIQ+persons show high rates of chronic physical and mental illness on the one hand, and report negative experiences with health care providers on the other hand. The aim of this work is to point towards barriers and the provision of inadequate health care for LGBTIQ+persons, and to draw attention to relevant gaps in medical education in Germany, needing to be followed by specific actions.

METHODS

For these purposes, both scientific evidence for the disadvantage of LGBTIQ+persons within the health care system and important innovative interventions in the education of medical personnel are presented and discussed.

RESULTS

A variety of different - in terms of scope, format, and content - training programs have already been tested and established, mainly in English-speaking regions of the world. In contrast, medical training in Germany lacks such programs.

CONCLUSIONS

Raising awareness and expanding the training of medical students to include LGBTIQ+health topics is of great importance in Germany.

An adapted cognitive behavioral stress and self-management (CBSM) intervention for sexual minority men living with HIV and cancer using the SmartManage eHealth platform: Study design and protocol. (Preprint)

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

Targeting cancer prevention and screening interventions to LGBTQ communities: A scoping review

Although some people within LGBTQ communities are at risk of developing some cancers at higher rates than non-LGBTQ people, there is limited evidence of the outcomes of targeted cancer prevention and screening interventions for these communities. This scoping review examined key findings regarding the feasibility, acceptability and efficacy of evaluated intervention studies conducted in high income settings and published in peer reviewed literature (2014-2020) by combining evidence of both cancer risk-reducing behavioural interventions and screening and preventative practice interventions. While there is limited evidence of stronger outcomes from targeted interventions with cohorts of gender and sexuality diverse communities, compared with the use of mainstream or untailored interventions, there is stronger evidence that targeted interventions are more acceptable to these communities and may be more feasible in some contexts. Thus, there is benefit in understanding what targeting entails in these interventions, and to understand what influences acceptability, to inform the design and delivery of such interventions.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Inclusive of All Women at Average Risk: Update from the ACR and Society of Breast Imaging

Breast cancer remains the most common nonskin cancer, the second leading cause of cancer deaths, and the leading cause of premature death in US women. Mammography screening has been proven effective in reducing breast cancer deaths in women age 40 years and older. A mortality reduction of 40% is possible with regular screening. Treatment advances cannot overcome the disadvantage of being diagnosed with an advanced-stage tumor. The ACR and Society of Breast Imaging recommend annual mammography screening beginning at age 40, which provides the greatest mortality reduction, diagnosis at earlier stage, better surgical options, and more effective chemotherapy. Annual screening results in more screening-detected tumors, tumors of smaller sizes, and fewer interval cancers than longer screening intervals. Screened women in their 40s are more likely to have early-stage disease, negative lymph nodes, and smaller tumors than unscreened women. Delaying screening until age 45 or 50 will result in an unnecessary loss of life to breast cancer and adversely affects minority women in particular. Screening should continue past age 74 years, without an upper age limit unless severe comorbidities limit life expectancy. Benefits of screening should be considered along with the possibilities of recall for additional imaging and benign biopsy and the less tangible risks of anxiety and overdiagnosis. Although recall and biopsy recommendations are higher with more frequent screening, so are life-years gained and breast cancer deaths averted. Women who wish to maximize benefit will choose annual screening starting at age 40 years and will not stop screening prematurely.