Faculty Bibliography

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) populations experience health and healthcare disparities that may place them at higher risk for developing cancer. In addition, LGBTQ communities have psychosocial factors, such as fear of discrimination, that have substantial impacts on their medical care. As a result, these populations have specific needs with regard to cancer screening, treatment and support that must be addressed by cancer care providers. Although much has been done to address cancer care in the general population, more improvement is needed in the care of LGBTQ patients. We aim to present an overview of the current state of LGBTQ cancer care, opportunities for improvement and how cancer centers and providers can create a better future for the care of LGBTQ cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian/bisexual women with physical disabilities (LBPD) are an under-studied population. OBJECTIVES: This study compared LBPD to LB women without physical disabilities as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act on socio-demographic variables, health characteristics, and quality of life, physical activity, weight, and nutrition outcomes following a health intervention. METHODS: Data came from the Healthy Weight in Lesbian and Bisexual Women Study (HWLB) where 376 LB women were recruited into five geographically dispersed interventions. Baseline data were examined to compare women with and without physical disabilities as defined by the ADA, and pre/post intervention data were analyzed for differences in treatment outcomes including quality of life, physical activity, nutrition, and body size. RESULTS: Compared to women without disability, LBPD were more likely to be bisexual or another sexual identity than lesbian, single, report poor or fair health status, postmenopausal, and had a higher body mass index and waist circumference to height ratio. LBPD women were less likely to work and to drink heavily, and reported reduced physical and mental health quality of life. In spite of these differences, after the intervention, LBPD had similar outcomes to women without disabilities on most measures, and were more likely to show improvements in physical quality of life and consumption of fruits/vegetables. CONCLUSIONS: Although different from women without disabilities on many socio-demographic and health variables at baseline, the study suggests that LBPD have similar outcomes to women without disabilities, or may even do better, in group health interventions.

The purpose of this review is to create a set of provisional criteria for Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to refer to when assessing the ethical orientation of transgender health research proposals. We began by searching for literature on this topic using databases and the reference lists of key articles, resulting in a preliminary set of criteria. We then collaborated to develop the following nine guidelines: (1) Whenever possible, research should be grounded, from inception to dissemination, in a meaningful collaboration with community stakeholders; (2) language and framing of transgender health research should be non-stigmatizing; (3) research should be disseminated back to the community; (4) the diversity of the transgender and gender diverse (TGGD) community should be accurately reflected and sensitively reflected; (5) informed consent must be meaningful, without coercion or undue influence; (6) the protection of participant confidentiality should be paramount; (7) alternative consent procedures should be considered for TGGD minors; (8) research should align with current professional standards that refute conversion, reorientation, or reparative therapy; and (9) IRBs should guard against the temptation to avoid, limit, or delay research on this subject.

Transgender medicine presents a particular challenge for the development of evidence-based guidelines, due to limitations in the available body of evidence as well as the exclusion of gender identity data from most public health surveillance activities. The guidelines that have been published are often based on expert opinion, small studies, and data gathered outside the US. The existence of guidelines, however, helps legitimate the need for gender-affirming medical and surgical interventions. Research conducted on transgender populations should be grounded in gender-affirming methodologies and focus on key areas such as health outcomes after gender-affirming interventions.

Transgender (trans) communities worldwide, particularly those on the trans feminine spectrum, are disproportionately burdened by HIV infection and at risk for HIV acquisition/transmission. Trans individuals represent an underserved, highly stigmatized, and under-resourced population not only in HIV prevention efforts but also in delivery of general primary medical and clinical care that is gender affirming. We offer a model of gender-affirmative integrated clinical care and community research to address and intervene on disparities in HIV infection for transgender people. We define trans terminology, briefly review the social epidemiology of HIV infection among trans individuals, highlight gender affirmation as a key social determinant of health, describe exemplar models of gender-affirmative clinical care in Boston MA, New York, NY, and San Francisco, CA, and offer suggested "best practices" for how to integrate clinical care and research for the field of HIV prevention. Holistic and culturally responsive HIV prevention interventions must be grounded in the lived realities the trans community faces to reduce disparities in HIV infection. HIV prevention interventions will be most effective if they use a structural approach and integrate primary concerns of transgender people (eg, gender-affirmative care and management of gender transition) alongside delivery of HIV-related services (eg, biobehavioral prevention, HIV testing, linkage to care, and treatment).