Abstract P024: Participation, barriers, and facilitators of cancer screening among sexual and gender minority groups: a scoping review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Sexual and gender minority populations are at higher risk for certain cancers but less likely to engage with preventive healthcare such as cancer screening services. Despite this, the barriers, and facilitators to cancer screening among this population are not well understood. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE articles published between January 2001 and April 2021 related to sexual and gender minority group participation in cancer screening, as well as barriers and facilitators to participation. The search yielded 3,058 results and, following abstract and full-text screening, 51 quantitative and qualitative studies were included in the final synthesis. Results: When compared to their heterosexual counterparts, sexual minority women were less likely to participate in cervical cancer screening and mammography, while sexual minority 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-levels. Individual-level factors included lack of knowledge about screening, fear of pain and embarrassment, and a fear of results (which could be both a negative and positive factor for screening participation). Not disclosing sexual orientation or gender identity to a healthcare provider was a barrier to screening participation, where perceived or previous experiences with discrimination from healthcare providers was an important factor in deciding whether to disclose. Lack of provider knowledge and use of (mis)gendered or heteronormative language by providers were significant barriers to screening and prevented patients from disclosing their identity. The strongest administrative barrier was a lack of LGBTQ-inclusive documentation and physical environments in healthcare. Conclusions: Our findings provide insights into how participation rates for sexual and gender minorities in cancer screening can be improved. Patient-centered approaches should draw on core guiding principles to inform the provision of sexual and gender minority care, including anticipating sexual and gender minority patients (including establishing a safe space for sexual and gender minority patients), improving knowledge about care for these patients, and confronting individually held biases that may affect care, to improve care experiences and participation rates in preventive services. Citation Format: Emily Heer, Cheryl Peters, Rod Knight, Lin Yang, Liam Sutherland, Steven J. Heitman. Participation, barriers, and facilitators of cancer screening among sexual and gender minority groups: a scoping review. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference: Precision Prevention, Early Detection, and Interception of Cancer; 2022 Nov 17-19; Austin, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Can Prev Res 2023;16(1 Suppl): Abstract nr P024.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».