Participation, Barriers, and Facilitators of Cancer Screening Among LGBTQ+ Populations: A Review of the Literature

IF 4.3 4区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1097/01.ogx.0000979676.12813.5a
Emily Heer, Cheryl Peters, Rod Knight, Lin Yang, Steven J. Heitman
{"title":"Participation, Barriers, and Facilitators of Cancer Screening Among LGBTQ+ Populations: A Review of the Literature","authors":"Emily Heer, Cheryl Peters, Rod Knight, Lin Yang, Steven J. Heitman","doi":"10.1097/01.ogx.0000979676.12813.5a","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Compared with cisgender and heterosexual individuals, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience worse health outcomes. This is due to a combination of structural inequities and life experiences, including higher rates of mental illness and suicidality, sexually transmitted infections, and certain cancers. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk of anal cancer, and lesbian and bisexual women are often diagnosed with breast cancer at younger ages than heterosexual women partly due to lower parity and higher bodyweight. Despite these increased risks, some evidence shows the LGBTQ+ population is less likely to participate in early detection and cancer screening programs; however, the etiology of this is unknown. This review aims to summarize the current literature on cancer screening uptake in the LGBTQ+ population, including barriers and facilitators associated with screening participation. Studies published between January 2001 and April 2022 involving individuals identified as a gender or sexual minority that assessed participation in and/or facilitators and barriers to a cancer screening procedure were included. Barriers and facilitators identified in quantitative studies were reported on the individual-, provider-, and administrative/system-level scale. A total of 50 publications were included, 38 of which were quantitative, 10 were qualitative, and 2 used mixed methods. Among 16 relevant studies, considerable variation was identified when analyzing whether sexual minority women had lower participation in cervical cancer screening programs. Among 15 studies assessing the participation of sexual minority women compared with heterosexual women in breast cancer screening, 5 studies found no difference, whereas the remainder suggested lower rates of screening among sexual minority women. Fewer studies assessed screening among sexual minority men; however, sexual minority men were more likely to report anal cancer screening than heterosexual men. Cervical cancer screening participation among transgender men and gender diverse participants was lower than cisgender participants in almost all studies. Of 9 studies reporting breast cancer screening among gender diverse or transgender individuals, 5 found lower participation among transgender or gender diverse individuals compared with cisgender women. One study identified greater odds of up-to-date mammography among transgender men compared with cisgender women. The most common individual-level barriers to screening are related to knowledge of the screening tests themselves, including screening guidelines, procedures, pain, embarrassment, and a fear of results. One of the strongest correlates in studies was perceived discrimination from health care providers, which often resulted in lack of disclosure of sexual orientation or gender identity. Provider-level factors mostly included provider communication and relationship with the patient, and patients preferred providers experienced with LGBTQ+ clients and that used sexuality-inclusive language. Having open communication about sexual orientation and gender identity was a positive facilitator for all patients. System-level barriers included inclusive documentation and physical environments in health care. This review highlights key disparities including the lower screening rates among transgender patients in all categories and lower screening rates for cervical cancer and mammography among sexual minority women. It also highlights a significant need for representative data on all LGBTQ+ populations.","PeriodicalId":19409,"journal":{"name":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ogx.0000979676.12813.5a","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Compared with cisgender and heterosexual individuals, members of the LGBTQ+ community experience worse health outcomes. This is due to a combination of structural inequities and life experiences, including higher rates of mental illness and suicidality, sexually transmitted infections, and certain cancers. Men who have sex with men are at higher risk of anal cancer, and lesbian and bisexual women are often diagnosed with breast cancer at younger ages than heterosexual women partly due to lower parity and higher bodyweight. Despite these increased risks, some evidence shows the LGBTQ+ population is less likely to participate in early detection and cancer screening programs; however, the etiology of this is unknown. This review aims to summarize the current literature on cancer screening uptake in the LGBTQ+ population, including barriers and facilitators associated with screening participation. Studies published between January 2001 and April 2022 involving individuals identified as a gender or sexual minority that assessed participation in and/or facilitators and barriers to a cancer screening procedure were included. Barriers and facilitators identified in quantitative studies were reported on the individual-, provider-, and administrative/system-level scale. A total of 50 publications were included, 38 of which were quantitative, 10 were qualitative, and 2 used mixed methods. Among 16 relevant studies, considerable variation was identified when analyzing whether sexual minority women had lower participation in cervical cancer screening programs. Among 15 studies assessing the participation of sexual minority women compared with heterosexual women in breast cancer screening, 5 studies found no difference, whereas the remainder suggested lower rates of screening among sexual minority women. Fewer studies assessed screening among sexual minority men; however, sexual minority men were more likely to report anal cancer screening than heterosexual men. Cervical cancer screening participation among transgender men and gender diverse participants was lower than cisgender participants in almost all studies. Of 9 studies reporting breast cancer screening among gender diverse or transgender individuals, 5 found lower participation among transgender or gender diverse individuals compared with cisgender women. One study identified greater odds of up-to-date mammography among transgender men compared with cisgender women. The most common individual-level barriers to screening are related to knowledge of the screening tests themselves, including screening guidelines, procedures, pain, embarrassment, and a fear of results. One of the strongest correlates in studies was perceived discrimination from health care providers, which often resulted in lack of disclosure of sexual orientation or gender identity. Provider-level factors mostly included provider communication and relationship with the patient, and patients preferred providers experienced with LGBTQ+ clients and that used sexuality-inclusive language. Having open communication about sexual orientation and gender identity was a positive facilitator for all patients. System-level barriers included inclusive documentation and physical environments in health care. This review highlights key disparities including the lower screening rates among transgender patients in all categories and lower screening rates for cervical cancer and mammography among sexual minority women. It also highlights a significant need for representative data on all LGBTQ+ populations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
LGBTQ+人群癌症筛查的参与、障碍和促进因素:文献综述
与顺性和异性恋个体相比,LGBTQ+社区成员的健康状况更差。这是由于结构性不平等和生活经历共同造成的,包括精神疾病和自杀、性传播感染和某些癌症的发病率较高。与男性发生性关系的男性患肛门癌的风险更高,女同性恋和双性恋女性通常比异性恋女性更年轻就被诊断出患有乳腺癌,部分原因是她们的胎次更低,体重更高。尽管这些风险增加了,但一些证据表明,LGBTQ+人群不太可能参与早期检测和癌症筛查项目;然而,其病因尚不清楚。本综述旨在总结当前关于LGBTQ+人群接受癌症筛查的文献,包括与筛查参与相关的障碍和促进因素。2001年1月至2022年4月期间发表的涉及性别或性少数群体的研究评估了癌症筛查程序的参与和/或促进因素和障碍。在定量研究中确定的障碍和促进因素在个人、提供者和行政/系统级别上进行了报告。共纳入50篇文献,其中定量文献38篇,定性文献10篇,混合文献2篇。在16项相关研究中,当分析性少数女性是否较低参与宫颈癌筛查项目时,发现了相当大的差异。在评估性少数女性与异性恋女性参与乳腺癌筛查的15项研究中,有5项研究没有发现差异,而其余研究则表明性少数女性的筛查率较低。评估性少数男性筛查的研究较少;然而,性少数男性比异性恋男性更有可能报告肛门癌筛查。在几乎所有的研究中,变性男性和不同性别参与者的宫颈癌筛查参与率低于顺性参与者。9项研究报告了不同性别或跨性别者的乳腺癌筛查,其中5项研究发现,与顺性女性相比,跨性别者或不同性别者的乳腺癌筛查参与率较低。一项研究发现,与顺性女性相比,变性男性接受最新乳房x光检查的几率更高。最常见的个人层面的筛查障碍与筛查测试本身的知识有关,包括筛查指南、程序、痛苦、尴尬和对结果的恐惧。研究中最强的关联之一是来自保健提供者的歧视,这往往导致不公开性取向或性别认同。提供者层面的因素主要包括提供者与患者的沟通和关系,患者更喜欢有LGBTQ+客户经验和使用性别包容性语言的提供者。就性取向和性别认同进行公开交流对所有患者都有积极的促进作用。系统级障碍包括卫生保健中的包容性文件和物理环境。这篇综述强调了主要的差异,包括所有类别的变性患者的筛查率较低,性少数女性的宫颈癌和乳房x光检查的筛查率较低。它还强调了对所有LGBTQ+人群的代表性数据的重大需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
3.20%
发文量
245
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​Each monthly issue of Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey presents summaries of the most timely and clinically relevant research being published worldwide. These concise, easy-to-read summaries provide expert insight into how to apply the latest research to patient care. The accompanying editorial commentary puts the studies into perspective and supplies authoritative guidance. The result is a valuable, time-saving resource for busy clinicians.
期刊最新文献
Ovarian Stem Cells: Will the Dream of Neo-Folliculogenesis After Birth Become Real? The Clinical Utility of Measures of Ovarian Reserve. Management of Maternal Genetic Conditions in Pregnancy, Part 1: Disorders of the Connective Tissue, Muscle, Vascular, and Skeletal Systems. Nutritional Changes to Improve Female Fertility: Role of Obesity, Hormones, Dietary Patterns and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. PICC Lines in Pregnancy and Other Peripartum Vascular Access Considerations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1