Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation.

Introduction: Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers yet remains a disease of inequity for people with intellectual disability, in part due to low screening rates. The ScreenEQUAL project will use an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model to co-produce and evaluate accessible cervical screening resources with and for this group. Methods: Stage 1 will qualitatively explore facilitators and barriers to screening participation for people with intellectual disability, families and support people, healthcare providers and disability sector stakeholders (n ≈ 20 in each group). An accessible multimodal screening resource, accompanying supporting materials for families and support people, and trauma-informed healthcare provider training materials will then be co-produced through a series of workshops. Stage 2 will recruit people with intellectual disability aged 25 to 74 who are due or overdue for screening into a single-arm trial (n = 48). Trained support people will provide them with the co-produced resource in accessible workshops (intervention) and support them in completing pre-post questions to assess informed decision-making. A subset will participate in qualitative post-intervention interviews including optional body-mapping (n ≈ 20). Screening uptake in the 9-months following the intervention will be measured through data linkage. Family members and support people (n = 48) and healthcare providers (n = 433) will be recruited into single-arm sub-studies. Over a 4-month period they will, respectively, receive the accompanying supporting materials, and the trauma-informed training materials. Both groups will complete pre-post online surveys. A subset of each group (n ≈ 20) will be invited to participate in post-intervention semi-structured interviews. Outcomes and analysis: Our primary outcome is a change in informed decision-making by people with intellectual disability across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and screening intention. Secondary outcomes include: (i) uptake of screening in the 9-months following the intervention workshops, (ii) changes in health literacy, attitudes and self-efficacy of family members and support people, and (iii) changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and preparedness of screening providers. Each participant group will evaluate acceptability, feasibility and usability of the resources. Discussion: If found to be effective and acceptable, the co-produced cervical screening resources and training materials will be made freely available through the ScreenEQUAL website to support national, and potentially international, scale-up.

"I've had constant fears that I'll get cancer": the construction and experience of medical intervention on intersex bodies to reduce cancer risk.

PURPOSE: This paper examines the subjective experience of medical interventions on intersex bodies to reduce cancer risk. METHODS: Twenty-five individuals with intersex variations took part in semi-structured interviews, analysed through thematic discourse analysis. RESULTS: Intersex bodies were positioned as inherently sick and in need of modification, with cancer risk legitimating surgical and hormonal intervention. This resulted in embodied shame, with negative impacts on fertility and sexual wellbeing. However, many participants resisted discourses of bio-pathologisation and embraced intersex status. Some medical interventions, such as HRT, were perceived to have increased the risk of cancer. Absence of informed consent, and lack of information about intersex status and the consequences of medical intervention, was positioned as a human rights violation. This was compounded by ongoing medical mismanagement, including health care professional lack of understanding of intersex variations, and the objectification or stigmatization of intersex people within healthcare. The consequence was non-disclosure of intersex status in health contexts and lack of trust in health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The legitimacy of poorly-evidenced cancer risk discourses to justify medical intervention on intersex bodies needs to be challenged. Healthcare practitioners need to be provided with education and training about cultural safety practices for working with intersex people.

"Queer people are excellent caregivers, but we're stretched so very thin": Psychosocial wellbeing and impacts of caregiving among LGBTQI cancer carers.

BACKGROUND: LGBTQI (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex) communities are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable and high-risk population in oncology. LGBTQI cancer carers, including carers who are LGBTQI and other carers of LGBTQI people, experience many of the same stressors as LGBTQI patients but their support needs are often overlooked in the cancer literature. METHOD: This mixed-methods study examined distress and quality of life in LGBTQI cancer carers. Online surveys were completed by 129 carers and 31 carers took part in a one-to-one semi-structured interview. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) tested for differences in psychosocial outcomes and carer experiences by gender, sexuality, age, carer relationship and carer/patient LGBTQI status. Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses facilitated in-depth examination of subjective experiences. RESULTS: 42.6% of participants reported high or very high distress. Distress was significantly positively correlated with discrimination in cancer care, health impact, financial impact and lack of family support; it was negatively correlated with comfort in LGBTQI sexuality and gender identity, social support and quality of life. Four themes were identified in thematic analysis of qualitative data: (1) Identity on the sidelines: LGBTQI sexuality and gender pushed aside during cancer caregiving; (2) Fear of being shut-out: rejection and exclusion of LGBTQI cancer carers; (3) Lack of support for LGBTQI caregivers; and (4) Closer and stronger relationships due to a culture of mutual caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQI cancer carers must contend with typical caregiving demands whilst also managing additional minority stressors, including discrimination, rejection from family, isolation from LGBTQI communities, and invisibility in healthcare and support services. Despite this, LGBTQI carers showed resilience in building their own mutually supportive networks to rally around the person with cancer, which were reported to ameliorate psychosocial vulnerabilities. Service providers need to recognize the needs of LGBTQI cancer carers through inclusive and reflective practices. This will facilitate trust and patient and carer sexuality and gender identity disclosure, with positive consequences for wellbeing and satisfaction with cancer care.

Disrupted identities, invisibility and precarious support: a mixed methods study of LGBTQI adolescents and young adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer report higher levels of depression and anxiety and lower health related quality of life than non-LGBTQI AYAs with cancer, and LGBTQI adults with cancer. This mixed methods study examined LGBTQI AYAs' experiences of cancer and cancer care, to understand these health disparities. METHODS: Online surveys were completed by 95 LGBTQI AYAs with cancer (age 16-39 years); 19 AYAs took part in a one-to-one semi structured interview. Reflexive thematic analysis of interviews and open-ended survey responses facilitated in-depth examination of subjective experiences; descriptive statistics performed on individual closed-ended survey items identified the percentage of AYAs reporting experiences identified in the qualitative analysis. RESULTS: 63% of AYAs reported high or very high distress on the K10. Three themes were identified in the qualitative analysis: 1) "Identities in flux", included subthemes "Cancer disrupts developing identities, and involvement with LGBTQI communities"; "Internalized prejudice impacts identities"; and "Cancer facilitates identities and embodiment". 2) "Invisibility in cancer care", included subthemes "Navigating disclosure amongst cis-heteronormative assumptions", "Discrimination and paternalistic cancer care" and " Cis-heteronormativity within cancer information". 3) "Precarious social support for LGBTQI AYAs with cancer", included subthemes " Social support during cancer is helpful for LGBTQI AYAs", "LGBTQI AYAs navigate limited support", and" Finding cancer peer support networks is difficult for LGBTQI AYAs". CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQI AYAs with cancer experience psychosocial vulnerabilities related to identity development, experiences of care, and social support networks. These factors likely contribute to their previously evidenced elevated risk of distress, relative to both non-LGBTQI AYAs and LGBTQI older adults. AYAs affected by cancer may require additional, tailored supportive care, including targeted information resources, LGBTQI AYA specific cancer support groups, or partnerships and referrals to LGBTQI community organisations. Additionally, it is evident that health care professionals and cancer services have much work to do in ensuring LGBTQI AYAs receive affirming and appropriate care across paediatric and adult clinical settings. They must move beyond assuming all patients are cisgender, heterosexual and do not have intersex variations unless otherwise stated; work to signal inclusivity and facilitate disclosure; and be able to respond appropriately with tailored information and care, which is inclusive of LGBTQI partners, chosen family, and support systems.

Almost invisible: A review of inclusion of LGBTQI people with cancer in online patient information resources.

OBJECTIVE: This review assessed the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people in online cancer information. METHODS: The websites of Australian cancer organizations were reviewed to identify if they included LGBTQI people and the extent and nature of this inclusion. Websites that did not include LGBTQI people were then reviewed to identify if information was implicitly LGBTQI inclusive. International LGBTQI cancer information resources were reviewed to identify key content. RESULTS: Of sixty-one Australian cancer organization websites reviewed, eight (13%) mentioned LGBTQI people, including 13 information resources targeted to LGBTQI people and 19 general cancer information resources that mentioned LGBTQI people. For Australian cancer websites that did not mention LGBTQI people, 88% used gender neutral language to refer to partners, 69% included a range of sexual behaviours, 13% used gender neutral language when referring to hormones or reproductive anatomy but none acknowledged diverse relationship types. Internationally, 38 LGBTQI-specific cancer information resources were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patient information resources need to be LGBTQI inclusive. LGBTQI-targeted resources are required to address this population's unique needs and improve cultural safety and cancer outcomes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Recommendations are provided for LGBTQI inclusive cancer patient information resources.

Reinforcing or Disrupting Gender Affirmation: The Impact of Cancer on Transgender Embodiment and Identity.

There is a pressing need for greater understanding and focus on cancer survivorship and informal cancer caring of trans people (binary and non-binary), across tumor types, to inform culturally safe trans inclusive cancer information and care. This qualitative study, part of the mixed methods Out with Cancer project, examined experiences of trans embodiment and identity after cancer diagnosis and treatment. We drew on open-ended survey responses from 63 trans cancer survivors and 23 trans cancer carers, as well as interviews and a photo-elicitation activity with a subset of 22 participants (15 cancer survivors, 7 cancer carers). Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: Cancer enhances trans embodiment, through experiences of gender euphoria following cancer treatment, and acceleration of decisions about gender affirmation; cancer erases or inhibits gender affirmation; trans embodiment is invisible or pathologized in cancer care. These findings demonstrate that trans embodiment and identity, as well as the process of gender affirmation, may be disrupted by cancer or informal cancer caring. Conversely, cancer and cancer treatment can positively impact the embodied identity and lives of trans people, despite the anxiety and strain of negotiating medical procedures. However, if healthcare professionals operate within a cis-heteronormative framework and do not understand the meaning of embodied change following cancer treatment for trans individuals, these positive benefits may not be realized.

LGBTQI cancer patients' quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness.

Background: There is growing acknowledgement of the psycho-social vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer. The majority of research to date has focused on cisgender adults with breast or prostate cancer. Study Aim: This study examined psycho-social factors associated with distress and quality of life for LGBTQI cancer patients and survivors, across a range of sexualities and gender identities, intersex status, tumor types, ages and urban/rural/remote location using an intersectional theoretical framework. Method: 430 LGBTQI people with cancer completed an online survey, measuring distress, quality of life (QOL), and a range of psycho-social variables. Participants included 216 (50.2%) cisgender women, 145 (33.7%) cisgender men, and 63 (14.7%) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Thirty-one (7.2%) participants reported intersex variation and 90 (20%) were adolescents or young adults (AYA), aged 15-39. The majority lived in urban areas (54.4%) and identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (73.7%), with 10.9% identifying as bisexual, and 10.5% as queer, including reproductive (32.4%) and non-reproductive (67.6%) cancers. Results: Forty-one percent of participants reported high or very high distress levels, 3-6 times higher than previous non-LGBTQI cancer studies. Higher rates of distress and lower QOL were identified in TGD compared to cisgender people, AYAs compared to older people, those who identify as bisexual or queer, compared to those who identify as lesbian, gay or homosexual, and those who live in rural or regional areas, compared to urban areas. Elevated distress and lower QOL was associated with greater minority stress (discrimination in life and in cancer care, discomfort being LGBTQI, lower outness) and lower social support, in these subgroups. There were no differences between reproductive and non-reproductive cancers. For the whole sample, distress and poor QOL were associated with physical and sexual concerns, the impact of cancer on gender and LGBTQI identities, minority stress, and lack of social support. Conclusion: LGBTQI people with cancer are at high risk of distress and impaired QOL. Research and oncology healthcare practice needs to recognize the diversity of LGBTQI communities, and the ways in which minority stress and lack of social support may affect wellbeing.

Co-designed, culturally tailored cervical screening education with migrant and refugee women in Australia: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Participation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) women from migrant and refugee backgrounds in cervical screening is crucial to eliminate cervical cancer as a public health problem within the next 20 years. However, CALD women report low participation in cervical screening. Barriers to participation can be addressed with culturally tailored, community-based programs. There is a need for research to explore the process, feasibility, acceptability and barriers to cultural tailoring in the delivery and evaluation of cervical screening health education. METHODS: CALD community health workers took part in a 2 day training program then co-designed, culturally tailored and co-facilitated cervical screening health promotion forums within their communities. Forums were delivered to a total of seven groups, involving 12 sessions and 71 CALD women. The forums were evaluated for feasibility, acceptability, implementation and effectiveness using a survey, interviews and observations. Data were collected from CALD women, facilitators and researchers. RESULTS: The co-design and co-delivery of cervical screening health promotion forums was time and resource intensive however allowed for deeper cultural tailoring resulting in engagement with 'hard to reach' CALD women, improved health literacy and intention to screen. Flexibility in the intervention implementation was crucial to ensure forums were responsive to community interests and needs. Online delivery of the forums in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was acceptable to most groups. CONCLUSIONS: Co-designed, culturally tailored cervical screening health promotion forums are feasible and acceptable to CALD women, in both face-to-face and online formats. Adjustments to the intervention protocol were recommended to improve future implementation.

"Surviving Discrimination by Pulling Together": LGBTQI Cancer Patient and Carer Experiences of Minority Stress and Social Support.

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer and their carers report poorer psychological outcomes than the general non-LGBTQI cancer population. There is growing acknowledgement that these health inequities can be explained by minority stress, which can be buffered by social support. Study Aim: To examine subjective experiences of minority stress and social support for LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers, drawing on qualitative findings from the Out with Cancer study. Method: An online survey including open ended items was completed by 430 LGBTQI cancer patients and 132 partners and other carers, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status. A sub-sample of 104 patients and 31 carers completed an interview, with a follow-up photovoice activity and second interview completed by 45 patients and 10 carers. Data was thematically analysed using an intersectional theoretical framework. Results: Historical and present-day experiences of discrimination, violence, family rejection and exclusion created a legacy of distress and fear. This impacted on trust of healthcare professionals and contributed to distress and unmet needs in cancer survivorship and care. Social support, often provided by partners and other chosen family, including intimate partners and other LGBTQI people, buffered the negative impacts of minority stress, helping LGBTQI patients deal with cancer. However, some participants lacked support due to not having a partner, rejection from family of origin and lack of support within LGBTQI communities, increasing vulnerability to poor psychological wellbeing. Despite the chronic, cumulative impacts of minority stress, LGBTQI patients and carers were not passive recipients of discriminatory and exclusion in cancer care, demonstrating agency and resistance through collective action and advocacy. Conclusion: LGBTQI people have unique socio-political histories and present-day psycho-social experiences that contribute to distress during cancer. Social support serves to buffer and ameliorate this distress. There is a need for cancer healthcare professionals and support services to be aware of and responsive to these potential vulnerabilities, including the intersectional differences in experiences of minority stress and social support. There is also a need for recognition and facilitation of social support among LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers.

LGBTQI Inclusive Cancer Care: A Discourse Analytic Study of Health Care Professional, Patient and Carer Perspectives.

Background: Awareness of the specific needs of LGBTQI cancer patients has led to calls for inclusivity, cultural competence, cultural safety and cultural humility in cancer care. Examination of oncology healthcare professionals' (HCP) perspectives is central to identifying barriers and facilitators to inclusive LGBTQI cancer care. Study Aim: This study examined oncology HCPs perspectives in relation to LGBTQI cancer care, and the implications of HCP perspectives and practices for LGBTQI patients and their caregivers. Method: 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%) and leadership (11%) positions took part in a survey; 48 HCPs completed an interview. 430 LGBTQI patients, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status, and 132 carers completed a survey, and 104 LGBTQI patients and 31 carers undertook an interview. Data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis. Results: Three HCP subject positions - ways of thinking and behaving in relation to the self and LGBTQI patients - were identified:'Inclusive and reflective' practitioners characterized LGBTQI patients as potentially vulnerable and offered inclusive care, drawing on an affirmative construction of LGBTQI health. This resulted in LGBTQI patients and their carers feeling safe and respected, willing to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) status, and satisfied with cancer care. 'Egalitarian practitioners' drew on discourses of ethical responsibility, positioning themselves as treating all patients the same, not seeing the relevance of SOGI information. This was associated with absence of LGBTQI-specific information, patient and carer anxiety about disclosure of SOGI, feelings of invisibility, and dissatisfaction with healthcare. 'Anti-inclusive' practitioners' expressed open hostility and prejudice towards LGBTQI patients, reflecting a cultural discourse of homophobia and transphobia. This was associated with patient and carer distress, feelings of negative judgement, and exclusion of same-gender partners. Conclusion: Derogatory views and descriptions of LGBTQI patients, and cis-normative practices need to be challenged, to ensure that HCPs offer inclusive and affirmative care. Building HCP's communicative competence to work with LGBTQI patients needs to become an essential part of basic training and ongoing professional development. Visible indicators of LGBTQI inclusivity are essential, alongside targeted resources and information for LGBTQI people.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice behaviours of oncology health care professionals towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) patients and their carers: A mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVE: There is growing recognition that health care professionals (HCPs) and policy makers are insufficiently equipped to provide culturally competent care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients and their families. We examined HCP attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding LGBTQI cancer care using a mixed-methods research design. METHOD: Surveys were completed by 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%), and clinical leadership roles (11%); 48 of the surveyed HCPs were interviewed. RESULTS: Most HCPs reported being comfortable treating LGBTQI patients, but reported low levels of confidence and knowledge and systemic barriers to LGBTQI cancer care. Most wanted more education and training, particularly on trans and gender-diverse people (TGD) and those born with intersex variations. CONCLUSION: Education of HCPs and health system changes are required to overcome barriers to the provision of culturally competent cancer care for LGBTQI patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings reinforce the need for inclusion of LGBTQI content in HCP education and professional training curricula, and institutional support for LGBTQI-inclusive practice behaviours. This includes administrative and visual cues to signal safety of LGBTQI patients within cancer care, facilitating inclusive environments, and the provision of tailored patient-centred care.