Heidi Moseson, Sachiko Ragosta, Anu Manchikanti Gómez, Jae Corman, Jay Zussman, Bori Lesser-Lee, Sydney Reese, India Rose Carter-Bolick, Juno Obedin-Maliver
{"title":"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","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":"{\"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}","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}
Acceptability of an organ inventory for cancer screening across gender identity and intersex status
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.