The psychosocial health of sexual and gender minority people with anal and colorectal cancer: a mixed methods study.

PURPOSE: Sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer survivors have poorer psychosocial health than their heterosexual cisgender counterparts. Nevertheless, most research has focused on breast and prostate survivors. It is unknown how different gastrointestinal (GI) cancers affect the psychosocial well-being of SGM individuals. We (1) described the psychosocial health of SGM people with GI cancers and (2) identified differences in psychosocial health outcomes by cancer type. METHODS: We conducted a concurrent mixed-methods secondary analysis with identical samples (n = 295) using data from "OUT: The National Cancer Survey." Likert-type and open-ended questions about demographics, satisfaction with care, social support, and access to mental health resources were included in the analysis. Poor mental health was the primary outcome. Quantitative (linear regression) and qualitative (thematic analysis) data were independently analyzed, then integrated through the narrative, weaving approach. RESULTS: Three concepts emerged after data integration, (1) positive and negative influences on the psychological well-being of the participants; (2) social adaptations with the participants' friends, partners, and family members; and (3) additional factors affecting the psychosocial well-being during and after cancer, particularly interactions with providers, comorbidities, and treatment side effects. CONCLUSION: Clinical characteristics, demographic factors, and culturally responsive care influenced the psychosocial health of SGM survivors of GI cancers. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Participants developed their own coping strategies and advocated for the SGM community. Interventions promoting peer support and self-esteem are a priority for this population. Healthcare professional training should incorporate historical trauma awareness and assess the delivery of culturally responsive care.

Clinical, psychosocial, and sociodemographic factors of sexual and gender minority groups with cancer: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial health varies depending on demographic and clinical factors and the social context in which individuals grow and live. Sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations experience health disparities due to systemic factors that privilege cisgender and heterosexual identities. We reviewed the literature on the psychosocial, sociodemographic, and clinical factors in SGM groups with cancer and described the associations among these factors. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review according to Fink's methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines in the PubMed, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and LGBTQ+ Life databases. Quantitative articles published in English or Spanish were included. Grey literature and studies with participants in hospice care were excluded. The quality of the publications was assessed with the Joanna Briggs Institute criticalappraisal tools. RESULTS: The review included 25 publications. In SGM groups, systemic cancer treatment was associated with worse psychosocial outcomes; and older age, employment, and higher income were associated with better psychosocial outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: SGM groups with cancer are different from their heterosexual cisgender peers in sociodemographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors. Clinical and sociodemographic factors are associated with psychosocial outcomes among SGM individuals with cancer.

Robots in Assisted Living Facilities: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Various technological interventions have been proposed and studied to address the growing demand for care of residents in assisted living facilities, in which a preexisting shortage of professional caregivers has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Care robots are one such intervention with the potential to improve both the care of older adults and the work life of their professional caregivers. However, concerns about efficacy, ethics, and best practices in the applications of robotic technologies in care settings remain. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to examine the literature on robots used in assisted living facilities and identify gaps in the literature to guide future research. METHODS: On February 12, 2022, following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) protocol, we searched PubMed, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, IEEE Xplore digital library, and ACM Digital Library using predetermined search terms. Publications were included if they were written in English and focused on the use of robotics in assisted living facilities. Publications were excluded if they did not provide peer-reviewed empirical data, focused on user needs, or developed an instrument to study human-robot interaction. The study findings were then summarized, coded, and analyzed using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice, and Research recommendations framework. RESULTS: The final sample included 73 publications from 69 unique studies on the use of robots in assisted living facilities. The findings of studies on older adults were mixed, with some studies suggesting positive impacts of robots, some expressing concerns about robots and barriers to their use, and others being inconclusive. Although many therapeutic benefits of care robots have been identified, methodological limitations have weakened the internal and external validity of the findings of these studies. Few studies (18/69, 26%) considered the context of care: most studies (48/69, 70%) collected data only on recipients of care, 15 studies collected data on staff, and 3 studies collected data on relatives or visitors. Theory-driven, longitudinal, and large sample size study designs were rare. Across the authors' disciplines, a lack of consistency in methodological quality and reporting makes it difficult to synthesize and assess research on care robotics. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study call for more systematic research on the feasibility and efficacy of robots in assisted living facilities. In particular, there is a dearth of research on how robots may change geriatric care and the work environment within assisted living facilities. To maximize the benefits and minimize the consequences for older adults and caregivers, future research will require interdisciplinary collaboration among health sciences, computer science, and engineering as well as agreement on methodological standards.