Psychosocial Needs and Experiences of Transgender and Gender Diverse People with Cancer: A Scoping Review and Recommendations for Improved Research and Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The psychosocial needs and experiences of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people is an understudied area of oncology research. In response to calls to action from past researchers, we conducted a scoping review, which included published and gray literature. From the included articles, the following key themes were identified: (1) lack of coordination between gender-affirming care and cancer care; (2) impact of cancer care on gender affirmation; (3) navigating gendered assumptions; (4) variation in providers' understanding of the needs of TGD patients; and (5) lack of TGD-specific cancer resources. Following this review, we consulted 18 key stakeholders with TGD-relevant personal and/or professional experience to gain further insight into issues that were not encompassed by the original themes. Based on these themes and stakeholder feedback, we offer recommendations for future research and clinical practice to increase awareness of the psychosocial needs of TGD people who have been diagnosed with cancer and to improve patient care.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".