Prostate cancer disclosure and sexual orientation: Understanding outness to healthcare providers as a situational or consistent phenomenon.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated if outness is more a situational or a consistent characteristic in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) treated for prostate cancer and how the disclosure of sexual orientation impacts provider discussions of sexual side effects. METHODS: Data came from Restore, an online cross-sectional survey of 193 GBM prostate cancer survivors living in North America and were analyzed using various statistical models. RESULTS: Disclosure of sexual orientation and of living with prostate cancer were not significantly correlated. Participants who were out regarding sexual orientation were more likely to report that their surgeons and urologists discussed the sexual side effects of treatment. CONCLUSION: Outness appears to be a situational phenomenon. GBM prostate cancer survivors who were out regarding sexual orientation received more discussion surrounding sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment from their providers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is important for healthcare providers to inquire about patient's sexual orientation to provide holistic care to these patients to address health disparities within this group.

Culturally Competent Care for Sexual and Gender Minority Patients at National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: This study sought to identify the policies and guidelines regarding culturally competent care of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients and survivors at National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. METHODS: This study used an in-depth interview qualitative approach. Semistructured interviews were conducted via telephone with representatives from 21 of the 45 NCI-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers in 2015. Verbatim transcripts were created from the audiotapes for content analysis. RESULTS: Two main themes were identified as follows: (1) patient-focused experiences and support and (2) organization-focused development activities. Most of the cancer centers in this study had an advisory committee to assist with SGM policies and guidelines. Despite the existence of these committees, the majority of centers did not have explicit policies, guidelines, or routine practices addressing the following issues: the collection and integration of sexual orientation and gender identity information in the medical record, gender-neutral language on patient forms, patient educational materials with SGM-specific health concerns, SGM-specific support for cancer survivors, or required SGM-specific cultural competency trainings for medical and nonmedical staff. CONCLUSION: In general, the cancer centers in this study lacked institutional policies, guidelines, and practices focused on patient-centered cancer care for SGM populations. Coordinated efforts are needed to systemically improve patient-centered cancer care for these populations.