Acceptability of an organ inventory for cancer screening across gender identity and intersex status

Heidi Moseson, Sachiko Ragosta, Anu Manchikanti Gómez, Jae Corman, Jay Zussman, Bori Lesser-Lee, Sydney Reese, India Rose Carter-Bolick, Juno Obedin-Maliver
{"title":"Acceptability of an organ inventory for cancer screening across gender identity and intersex status","authors":"Heidi Moseson, Sachiko Ragosta, Anu Manchikanti Gómez, Jae Corman, Jay Zussman, Bori Lesser-Lee, Sydney Reese, India Rose Carter-Bolick, Juno Obedin-Maliver","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djae336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To evaluate the acceptability and performance of an organ inventory as an alternative to asking about gender and/or sex assigned at birth in cancer screening. Methods We fielded an online, self-administered survey to a convenience sample of English- or Spanish-speaking transgender and gender-diverse (TGD), intersex, and cisgender people (>/=15 years) in the US. The survey contained an organ inventory developed with community input and questions regarding acceptability. The primary outcome was organ inventory acceptability by the four-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). Additional outcomes included inter-method screening agreement between the organ inventory, gender, and sex assigned at birth. Results In 2022, 333 eligible individuals completed the survey; 44.4% cisgender, 34.2% TGD, and 14.1% intersex. Overall, participants rated the organ inventory as acceptable (median AIM score = 18/20, IQR: 16-20). Most (73%) found it easy to understand, and comfortable to complete (65%). Cancer screening eligibility varied based on the method used; relying solely on gender or sex data would have missed some eligible participants that the organ inventory identified. Conclusions Using an organ inventory as an alternative to gender or sex-based screening questions was acceptable, and has implications for addressing cancer screening disparities.","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"146 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djae336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the acceptability and performance of an organ inventory as an alternative to asking about gender and/or sex assigned at birth in cancer screening. Methods We fielded an online, self-administered survey to a convenience sample of English- or Spanish-speaking transgender and gender-diverse (TGD), intersex, and cisgender people (>/=15 years) in the US. The survey contained an organ inventory developed with community input and questions regarding acceptability. The primary outcome was organ inventory acceptability by the four-item Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM). Additional outcomes included inter-method screening agreement between the organ inventory, gender, and sex assigned at birth. Results In 2022, 333 eligible individuals completed the survey; 44.4% cisgender, 34.2% TGD, and 14.1% intersex. Overall, participants rated the organ inventory as acceptable (median AIM score = 18/20, IQR: 16-20). Most (73%) found it easy to understand, and comfortable to complete (65%). Cancer screening eligibility varied based on the method used; relying solely on gender or sex data would have missed some eligible participants that the organ inventory identified. Conclusions Using an organ inventory as an alternative to gender or sex-based screening questions was acceptable, and has implications for addressing cancer screening disparities.
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
跨性别认同和双性人身份的癌症筛查器官清单的可接受性
目的评价器官清查作为癌症筛查中性别和/或出生性别询问的替代方法的可接受性和性能。方法:我们对美国讲英语或西班牙语的跨性别者和性别多样性者(TGD)、双性人和顺性人(15岁)进行了一项在线、自我管理的调查。该调查包括一份根据社区意见编制的器官清单和关于可接受性的问题。主要观察指标是通过四项干预措施可接受性(AIM)评估器官清单的可接受性。其他结果包括器官清单、性别和出生性别之间的方法间筛查一致性。结果在2022年,333名符合条件的个人完成了调查;44.4%为顺性别,34.2%为TGD, 14.1%为双性人。总体而言,参与者认为器官清单是可接受的(AIM评分中位数= 18/20,IQR: 16-20)。大多数人(73%)认为它很容易理解,而且很容易完成(65%)。癌症筛查的资格因使用的方法而异;仅仅依靠性别或性别数据可能会错过一些器官清单确定的符合条件的参与者。结论:使用器官清单作为性别或基于性别的筛查问题的替代方案是可以接受的,并且对解决癌症筛查差异具有重要意义。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Impact of screening for HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancers: a microsimulation-based modeling study Prognostic implications of risk definitions from the monarchE and NATALEE trials Response to Oleribe Comprehensive Genome Profiling for Treatment Decisions in Patients with Metastatic Tumors: Real-World Evidence Meta-Analysis and Registry Data Implementation The association between clinical trial participation, drug costs, and performance in the Oncology Care Model (OCM)
×
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