Barriers to and opportunities for advancing racial equity in cervical cancer screening in the United States.

BACKGROUND: In the United States (U.S.), racially minoritized people have higher rates of cervical cancer morbidity and mortality compared to white individuals as a result of racialized structural, social, economic, and health care inequities. However, cervical cancer screening guidelines are based on studies of predominately white individuals and do not substantially discuss or address racialized cervical cancer inequities and their social determinants, including racism. METHODS: We conducted in-depth interviews with health care providers (N = 30) and key informants with expertise in health equity (N = 18). We utilized semi-structured interview guides that addressed providers' views and experiences delivering cervical cancer screening to racially minoritized individuals and key informants' recommendations for advancing racial equity in the development and implementation of cervical cancer screening guidelines. Interviews were analyzed using a template style thematic analysis approach involving deductive and inductive coding, memo writing, and matrix analysis for theme development. RESULTS: Most health care providers adopted a universal, one-size-fits-all approach to cervical cancer screening with the stated goal of ensuring racial equality. Despite frequently acknowledging the existence of racialized cervical cancer inequities, few providers recognized the role of social inequities in influencing them, and none discussed the impact of racism. In contrast, key informants overwhelmingly recommended that providers adopt an approach to cervical cancer screening and follow-up care that recognizes the role of racism in shaping racialized cervical cancer and related social inequities, is developed in partnership with racially minoritized communities, and involves person-centered, structurally-competent, and trauma-informed practices that address racially minoritized peoples' unique lived experiences in historical and social context. This racism-conscious approach is not to be confused with race-based medicine, which is an essentialist and racist approach to health care that treats race as a biological variable rather than as a social and political construct. CONCLUSIONS: Developers and implementers of cervical cancer screening guidelines should explicitly recognize and address the impact of racism on cervical cancer screening, follow-up care, and outcomes, meaningfully incorporate racially minoritized communities' perspectives and experiences, and facilitate provider- and institutional-level practices that foster racial equity in cervical cancer.

Using Implicit Measures of Discrimination: White, Black, and Hispanic Participants Respond Differently to Group-Specific Racial/Ethnic Categories vs. the General Category "People of Color" in the USA.

Recent studies showed that implicit measures are valuable instruments for assessing exposure to discrimination and predicting negative physical conditions. Between March 10, 2020, and April 1, 2020, we conducted three experiments (577 participants) in the USA to evaluate the use of group-specific vs. general race/ethnicity categories in implicit measures of discrimination. We measured implicit discrimination and attitudes towards the general race/ethnicity category "people of color" (POC) and two specific race/ethnicity categories (i.e., "Black people" and "Hispanic people"). Implicit discrimination and attitudes were assessed using the Brief Implicit Association Test (B-IAT). Among participants (mean age = 37, standard deviation = 10.5), 50% identified as White non-Hispanic (NH), 33.3% as Black NH, and 16.7% as Hispanic; 71.7% were female and 72.2% had a bachelor's degree or higher. We found an implicit discrimination towards target groups and an in-group preference among all participant groups only when specific race/ethnicity categories were used in the B-IAT. When the general category POC was used, we observed a discrimination towards POC only for Black NH participants, while White NH participants showed no discrimination. Similarly, Black NH participants showed no in-group preference for POC, but did show an in-group preference for Black people. These results suggest that using the category POC in implicit measures may be inappropriate when evaluating discrimination and attitudes towards Black and Hispanic individuals as it may not capture specific experiences of discrimination and identity in these groups.

"Focus more on what's right instead of what's wrong:" research priorities identified by a sample of transgender and gender diverse community health center patients.

BACKGROUND: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals disproportionately experience disparate health outcomes compared to their cisgender peers. This study aimed to collect qualitative data from a sample of TGD community health center patients on health research priorities to inform future TGD-centered research in the field of TGD health. METHODS: Between September-November of 2018, four focus groups (two groups in Boston MA, two in New York NY; n = 28 individuals) were held to evaluate community-identified TGD health research priorities with a sample of patients from two community health centers. Thematic analyses were conducted and restricted to social factors impacting health. Findings were incorporated into the development of The LEGACY Project, a longitudinal cohort of TGD patients, assessing the impact of gender-affirming care on health outcomes. RESULTS: Cross-cutting themes about TGD research priorities pertaining to social factors and health included: (1) Embodiment: understanding and investigating the complex and intersectional lived experiences of TGD individuals; (2) Social determinants of health: the impact of structural and interpersonal stigma on TGD health; and (3) Resiliency and health promoting factors: the need to expand public health research beyond disparities to assess resiliency and health promotion in TGD communities. CONCLUSIONS: Participants identified investigating the impact of social influences on health as a research priority for TGD patients. Recalibrating field norms from individual researcher priorities to TGD population-driven research will help ensure investigators address topics that may otherwise be missed or overlooked and may optimize the reach and impact of research in TGD health.