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.