Abstract B101: Bridging the gap between cancer care service delivery and the sexual and gender minority communities: a scoping review of the literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose: While there has been an increase in health equity research, there is scarcely research focusing on health equity for cancer survivors who identify as LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex, Asexual, Pansexual and Two-Spirit). This is in part the result of a lack of routine collection of SOGI (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) data within the LGBTQIA+ community. Our research aims to analyze and discuss how labelling and terminology have both influenced medical practice and posed barriers and delays in care to the LGBT community over time. Further, examining whether the literature supports increasing LGBT experiences in interprofessional training. By identifying these gaps in the literature and in interprofessional training we hope to decrease barriers to timely and supportive cancer services. Methods: To examine the breadth of research on the LGBTQIA+ community and cancer, a scoping review methodology was utilized to identify knowledge and research gaps. This review examines literature published in the U.S, in academic journals between 1913 and 2021 to gain a greater understanding of how historical contexts, policy, and research have evolved alongside the growing visibility of the LGBTQIA+ community. The authors used a scoping review strategy outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) to review the literature employing a comprehensive list of search terms for cancer and LGBTQIA+. Rayyan software was then utilized to organize the data as our team hand-searched the articles for inclusion (cancer, LGBTQIA) and exclusion (non-US, foreign language, prevention, screening) criteria. A total of 3,290 articles were included in the final analysis. Findings: In 2011, a review of all articles on PubMed demonstrated only 0.3% of all publications pertained to LGBT health-related subject matters, and in a study conducted about U.S and Canadian medical education, research showed that medical students spent < 5 hours, on average, learning about LGBT discrimination and healthcare disparities. 70% of LGBT persons reported discrimination, refusal of care, bias, erroneous assumptions, and derogatory statements during healthcare visits in the United States. Conclusions: There is an urgent need for culturally competent interprofessional care, and we must challenge our approach by not only listening to the needs of the communities we serve but also by being receptive to their feedback. There is an unmet need for education to inform healthcare professionals, health social workers and their community partners of the unique experiences and needs of the LGBTQIA+ community. It is imperative that we use the recommendations and guidelines provided by the LGBTQIA+ cancer patient population to transform their healthcare experiences, improve patient-provider communication, and provide precision-supportive care. Citation Format: Brittany M. Hernandez, Sanford E. Jeames, Lailea Noel. Bridging the gap between cancer care service delivery and the sexual and gender minority communities: a scoping review of the literature [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr B101.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,090 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,041 | 0,038 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,006 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».