Gender-Sexuality Alliance Experiences and LGBTQ+ Inclusive School Policies and Practices Predict Youth's School Belonging.

Gender-Sexuality Alliances (GSAs) and inclusive school policies and practices that affirm youth with minoritized sexual orientations or gender identities (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer youth; LGBTQ+ youth) are two sources of support for LGBTQ+ youth that could promote school belonging. The current study tested a three-level multilevel model in which youth's GSA experiences and the degree to which their schools implemented LGBTQ+ inclusive policies and practices predicted their school belonging over a six-month period. Participants included 627 youth (87% LGBQ+ youth, 45% transgender or nonbinary youth, 48% youth of color) ages 11-22 (Mage = 15.13) in 51 GSAs. At the within-individual level, youth reported greater school belonging on occasions following months when they felt their peers and advisors were more responsive to their needs and when they had taken on more leadership in the GSA. At the between-individual level, youth who generally felt their peers were more responsive over the study period reported greater school belonging than others. At the between-GSA level, GSA members in schools that more thoroughly implemented LGBTQ+ inclusive policies and practices reported greater school belonging over the study period. These findings underscore the relevance of GSAs and inclusive policies and practices in establishing welcoming school environments.

Health Insurance Navigation Tools Intervention: A Pilot Trial Within the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

PURPOSE: Childhood cancer survivors are at increased risk for underinsurance and health insurance-related financial burden. Interventions targeting health insurance literacy (HIL) to improve the ability to understand and use health insurance are needed. METHODS: We codeveloped a four-session health insurance navigation tools (HINT) intervention, delivered synchronously by a patient navigator, and a corresponding booklet. We conducted a randomized pilot trial with survivors from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study comparing HINT with enhanced usual care (EUC; booklet). We assessed feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HIL, primary outcome; knowledge and confidence with health insurance terms and activity) on a 5-month survey and exit interviews. RESULTS: Among 231 invited, 82 (32.5%) survivors enrolled (53.7% female; median age 39 years, 75.6% had employer-sponsored insurance). Baseline HIL scores were low (mean = 28.5; 16-64; lower scores better); many lacked knowledge of Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions. 80.5% completed four HINT sessions, and 93.9% completed the follow-up survey. Participants rated HINT's helpfulness a mean of 8.9 (0-10). Exit interviews confirmed HINT's acceptability, specifically its virtual and personalized delivery and helpfulness in building confidence in understanding one's coverage. Compared with EUC, HINT significantly improved HIL (effect size = 0.94. P < .001), ACA provisions knowledge (effect size = 0.73, P = .003), psychological financial hardship (effect size = 0.64, P < .006), and health insurance satisfaction (effect size = 0.55, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Results support the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual health insurance navigation program targeted for childhood survivors to improve HIL. Randomized trials to assess the efficacy and sustainability of health insurance navigation on HIL and financial burden are needed.

Do cancer curvivors and metavivors have distinct needs for stress management intervention? Retrospective analysis of a mind-body survivorship program.

PURPOSE: Cancer "curvivors" (completed initial curative intent treatment with surgery, radiation, chemotherapy, and/or other novel therapies) and "metavivors" (living with metastatic or chronic, incurable cancer) experience unique stressors, but it remains unknown whether these differences impact benefits from mind-body interventions. This study explored differences between curvivors and metavivors in distress (depression, anxiety, worry) and resiliency changes over the course of an 8-week group program, based in mind-body stress reduction, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and positive psychology. METHODS: From 2017-2021, 192 cancer survivors (83% curvivors; 17% metavivors) completed optional online surveys of resiliency (CES) and distress (PHQ-8, GAD-7, PSWQ-3) pre- and post- participation in an established clinical program. Mixed effect regression models explored curvivor-metavivor differences at baseline and in pre-post change. RESULTS: Compared to curvivors, metavivors began the program with significantly more resilient health behaviors (B = 0.99, 95% CI[0.12, 1.86], p = .03) and less depression (B = -2.42, 95%CI[-4.73, -0.12], p = .04), with no other significant differences. Curvivors experienced significantly greater reductions in depression (curvivor-metavivor difference in strength of change = 2.12, 95% CI [0.39, 3.83], p = .02) over the course of the program, with no other significant differences. Neither virtual delivery modality nor proportion of sessions attended significantly moderated strength of resiliency or distress change. CONCLUSION: Metavivors entering this mind-body program had relatively higher well-being than did curvivors, and both groups experienced statistically comparable change in all domains other than depression. Resiliency programming may thus benefit a variety of cancer survivors, including those living with incurable cancer.