Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The National Academy of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) developed items to collect sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in healthcare settings to harmonize collection of these data and address disparities often experienced by sexual and gender minorities (SGM) (LGBTQAI+). This study tested wording of SOGI items among the SGM Community. METHODS:Individuals were recruited to participate in an interview about the NASEM SOGI items. Eligible participants identified as SGM, lived within the catchment area of an NYC academic medical center, had a history of cancer, or were caregivers of a person with cancer. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and qualitatively coded. RESULTS:Thirty-eight SGM individuals participated. The majority disliked the options for sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) but did find one they would choose. For SO, participants thought options like queer, pansexual, and asexual were missing, and for GI, participants said non-binary and transgender category (transgender man, transgender woman) were needed. Half said they had no concerns about disclosing SOGI information on medical intake forms and others reported preferring knowing why it was needed and who would have access. Several expressed worry about their safety upon disclosure of SOGI. Respondents cited being less likely to disclose SOGI if there was an offensive question on intake form (e.g., spouse instead of partner) or if there were no privacy assurances. Almost all expected reported SOGI to be reflected in their oncology healthcare. CONCLUSIONS:The NASEM questions need improvement. To improve trust and encourage disclosure, clinicians and clinics should improve the options for SOGI data collection and take steps to ensure privacy is addressed.

BACKGROUND:Routine collection and use of sexual orientation and gender identity data can assist in understanding and addressing the health disparities that affect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer+ (LGBTQ+), also known as sexual and gender minority, individuals and communities. This study explored the implementation of a culturally relevant sexual and gender minority/sexual orientation and gender identity training program at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS:The training consisted of 6 in-person 15-minute modules or 3 virtual 30-minute modules that occurred during established high-reliability organization huddles attended by oncology faculty and staff. Module topics were (1) Building LGBTQ+ Knowledge & LGBTQ+ Cancer Disparities, (2) Creating an Inclusive Environment, (3) Recovering From Misgendering/Making Assumptions, (4) How to Receive & Respond to Feedback, (5) Witnessing & Responding to Discrimination, and (6) Making and Sustaining a Change. All high-reliability organization attendees were considered eligible for participation and were provided with pretraining and post-training surveys. Survey items included comfort caring for sexual and gender minority patients, practice collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data, knowledge of sexual and gender minority health, and demographics. RESULTS:A total of 344 individuals completed the presurvey and 187 completed the postsurvey. Postsurvey results demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in self-perceived knowledge about sexual and gender minority health (scale: 0-100, with 100 = highest; presurvey vs postsurvey, 69 vs 84; P < .001). Respondents also reported statistically significant improvements in confidence in engaging with sexual orientation and gender identity questions (53 vs 79, P < .001) as well as intention to collect patient sexual orientation and gender identity information (49 vs 75, P < .001). Notably, sexual orientation and gender identity data collection tracking demonstrated a 311% increase in sexual orientation and 262% in gender identity disclosure during the study period. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite the availability of sexual orientation and gender identity data fields within electronic health records, sexual orientation and gender identity disclosure remains an ongoing nationwide problem. Use of culturally relevant sexual and gender minority/sexual orientation and gender identity training can help improve oncology staff and clinician sexual and gender minority knowledge and confidence when engaging patients with and subsequent documentation of sexual orientation and gender identity data, resulting in improvement of data completion.

OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to identify facilitators and barriers among sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals in receiving reproductive healthcare. METHODS:Participants were recruited through social media and university groups across the US. Inclusion criteria consisted of self-identified SGM community members; aged 18-40. This included: cisgender women whose sexual orientation included gay, lesbian, bisexual, and/or queer and / or individuals whose gender identity does not align with their sex assigned at birth; transgender men, non-binary people with a uterus, cisgender queen woman, and transgender woman. An initial codebook was developed utilizing inductive coding to identify key themes. RESULTS:A total of 9 focus groups were held with 67 people,5-10 people per group. Six themes were identified: 1) Barriers to high quality reproductive care, 2) Facilitators to high quality reproductive care, 3) Negative prior experiences, 4) Physical/logistical access to adequate care, 5) Emotions/trust in disclosing SGM status, and 6) Knowledge levels on SGM reproductive healthcare. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Quality reproductive health care for SGM individuals is hindered by individual, clinician, and institutional factors. The factors include individual barriers of knowledge, distrust, and dysphoria; clinician barriers knowledge gaps or discomfort; and institutional factors of false advertising of LGBTQ+ friendly practices. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:This study impacts clinical practice through providing focused areas to better improve training and education for healthcare providers. Findings support improving clinical training on cultural humility, creating a welcoming environment, maintaining trust, and utilizing sensitive terminology.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, or other sexual and/or gender expansive identities (LGBTQ+) in the United States are facing an insurmountable reintroduction of discriminatory and stigmatizing policies and legislation (i.e., Zombie Laws) particularly those pertaining to sexual practices, minoritized sexual orientations and gender identities, and access to equitable healthcare. This has a particularly devastating effect on cancer-related care and outcomes. Therefore, a call to action among researchers, policymakers, and activists is needed to protect LGBTQ + rights and ensure gains continue to ameliorate cancer-related health disparities.

Access to gender-affirming surgery is increasing for many transgender and nonbinary people in the United States, and radiation oncologists must be equipped to care for patients who have undergone such surgery in the region of their planned radiation treatment field. There are no guidelines for radiation treatment planning after gender-affirming surgery, and most oncologists do not receive training in the unique needs of transgender people with cancer. We review common gender-affirming genitopelvic surgeries for transfeminine people, including vaginoplasty, labiaplasty, and orchiectomy, and summarize the existing literature on the treatment of cancers of the neovagina, anus, rectum, prostate, and bladder in these patients. We also describe our systematic treatment approach and rationale for pelvic radiation treatment planning.

To identify potential gaps in attitudes, knowledge, and practices towards LGBTQ2S + patients with a cancer diagnosis, a survey of clinical providers (CP) and allied health staff (AHS) was conducted to identify areas of improvement and guide development for future education and training. A previously published, validated survey was adapted at the direction of a LGBTQ2S + Patient and Family Advisory Council, and modified to include AHS. The survey was disseminated to all faculty and staff, and was adapted to the participants' self-identified level of patient interaction/care responsibilities. Subsections consisted of questions related to demographics, knowledge, attitudes, and practice behaviors towards participating in the care of LGBTQ2S + patients. Results were quantified using stratified analysis and an attitude summary measure. Of the 311 respondents, 179 self-identified as CPs and 132 as AHS. There was high agreement in comfort treating or assisting LGBTQ2S + patients by CP and AHS respondents, respectively. CPs possessed significantly higher knowledge regarding LGBTQ2S + health when compared to AHS; however, there remained high percentages of "neutral" and "do not know or prefer not to answer" responses regardless of clinical role. There was high agreement regarding the importance of knowing a patient's gender identity (GI) and pronouns (CP vs. AHS; 76.9% vs. 73.5% and 89.4% vs. 84.1%, respectively), whereas patient's sexual orientation and sex assigned at birth (CP vs. AHS; 51.1% vs. 53.5% and 58.6% vs. 62.9%, respectively) were viewed as less important. There was high interest in receiving education regarding the unique needs of LGBTQ2S + patients regardless of clinical role. Stratified analyses of CPs revealed early-career physicians (< 1-5 years from graduation) expressed higher interest in additional education and involvement with LGBTQ2S + -focused trainings when compared to mid- and late-career providers. This is the first study, to our knowledge, assessing the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of CPs and AHS regarding the care of LGBTQ2S + patients with cancer. Overall, there was high comfort treating/assisting LGBTQ2S + patients among CP and AHS respondents, respectively; yet, both groups possessed significant gaps in LGBTQ2S + -focused knowledge.