What Are the Economic Arguments for Mandating LGBT+ Health Training for Healthcare Providers? An Economic Evaluation of the Impacts of LGBT+ Health Training on Cervical Screening.

Background: Equitable access to healthcare is a priority of many healthcare systems, aiming to ensure access is driven by need and not minority groups such as those defined by sexual orientation. However, there are healthcare areas where inequity in access across sexual orientation groups is found that are not justified based on need. Mandated LGBTQ+-specific training of the healthcare workforce may help address some barriers of access for these groups. The study aims to understand the potential economic implications for mandated LGBTQ+-specific healthcare training on the healthcare system in England, UK to inform commissioning of training provision. Methods: Cervical cancer screening was used as an exemplar case where there appears to be inequity in access for different sexual orientation groups. A decision model was developed and analysed that considered the impacts of greater uptake of screening for lesbian and bisexual women due to LGBTQ+ training. Costs took the perspective of the healthcare system and outcomes modelled were cancer cases averted in a timeframe of 5 years. Results: Based on cervical cancer screening alone, where training costs are fully attributed to this service, training would likely result in fewer cancer cases detected in the lesbian and bisexual populations, though this comes at a modest increase in healthcare sector costs, with this increase largely reflecting a greater volume of screens. Training costs do not appear to be a major component of the cost implications. Conclusions: In resource-constrained systems with increasing pressures for efficiency savings, the opportunity cost of delivering training is a realistic component of the commissioning decision. The findings in this paper provide a signal that mandated LGBTQ+ training in healthcare could lead to potentially greater outcomes and in breaking down barriers of access and could also enable the healthcare system to provide more equitable access to healthcare.

Bisexual People Experience Worse Health Outcomes in England: Evidence from a Cross-Sectional Survey in Primary Care.

Persistent inequalities in relation to health outcomes continue to exist among patients identifying as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB), and very little is known about outcomes specific to bisexual populations. This study's aim was to compare the health of individuals identifying as LGB with heterosexual counterparts within primary care in England. Cross-sectional survey data from the year 10 (2015/2016) English General Practice Patient Survey (GPPS) dataset, which consisted of 836,312 responses (38.9% response rate), including 23,834 people who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or "other" was analyzed. Health outcomes were assessed through self-reported quality of life, physical and mental health, and confidence in managing own health. Multifactorial logistic regression (adjusting for age, ethnic group, working status, and socioeconomic status) were conducted. Long-term physical and mental health problems were more than twice as likely to be reported for people within LGB groups compared to the heterosexual group for both genders, except bisexual women where the odds were more than four times greater (OR = 4.275, 95% CI, 3.896, 4.691; p < .001). Bisexual women were half as likely to report the absence of a long-term health problem (OR = 0.452, 95% CI 0.419, 0.488; p < .001). LGB groups across both genders, reported a higher proportion of individuals that did not feel confident in managing their health and experienced significantly worse quality of life compared to heterosexuals. LGB patients consistently report poorer health outcomes than heterosexual patients. Bisexual people of both genders consistently experienced worse physical and mental health outcomes compared with the other recorded sexual orientations.

Prevalence of alcohol use amongst sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) communities in the UK: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: globally, alcohol use rates vary by sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI), but UK government statistics on alcohol use in the LGBTQ+ population are missing. AIM: this systematic scoping review determined the prevalence of alcohol use amongst gender and sexual minority people in the UK. METHODS: empirical UK studies from 2010 onwards reporting the prevalence of alcohol use in SOGI compared with heterosexual/cisgender people were included. Searches in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Google, charity websites and systematic reviews were conducted in October 2021, using SOGI, alcohol and prevalence terms. Citation checking was done by two authors, with disagreements resolved through discussion. Data extraction was done by one author (CM) and checked by another (LZ). Quality assessment was performed by study design, sample type and statistical analysis of results. A narrative synthesis was qualitatively combined with a tabular presentation of results. RESULTS: database and website searches found 6607 potentially relevant citations, and 505 full texts were reviewed with 20 studies included, found in 21 publications and grey literature reports. Most were on sexual orientation, including 12 from large cohort studies. Harmful alcohol use is higher in LGBTQ+ people than heterosexual people in the UK, a result similar to that found in other countries. Qualitative data reflected alcohol's role as emotional support. Fewer asexual people drank alcohol compared with allosexual people, and there were no data available regarding intersex people. CONCLUSION: funded cohort studies and service providers should routinely collect SOGI data. Standardized reporting of SOGI and alcohol use would improve comparability across studies.

Why Are the Proportions of In-Vitro Fertilisation Interventions for Same Sex Female Couples Increasing?

Same-sex female couples who wish to become pregnant can choose donor insemination or in-vitro fertilization (IVF)-a technique intended for infertile women. In general, women in same-sex female partnerships are no more likely to be infertile than those in opposite sex partnerships. This article investigates data available from the Government Regulator of UK fertility clinics-the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, which is the only data available worldwide on same-sex female couples and their fertility choices. IVF is increasing both in absolute numbers and relative proportions year on year in the UK, compared to licensed donor insemination for same-sex female couples. As IVF has greater human and financial costs than donor insemination, policies should not encourage it as the first choice for fertile women requiring sperm. Commercial transactions are taking place where fertile lesbians receive cut price, and arguably unnecessary, IVF intervention in exchange for selling their eggs to be used for other infertile customers. If women are not told about the efficacy of fresh vs. frozen semen, and the risks of egg 'sharing' or intra-couple donation, exploitation becomes possible.

A Conceptual Review of Loneliness in Adults: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

The paper reports an evidence synthesis of how loneliness is conceptualised in qualitative studies in adults. Using PRISMA guidelines, our review evaluated exposure to or experiences of loneliness by adults (aged 16+) in any setting as outcomes, processes, or both. Our initial review included any qualitative or mixed-methods study, published or unpublished, in English, from 1945 to 2018, if it employed an identified theory or concept for understanding loneliness. The review was updated to include publications up to November 2020. We used a PEEST (Participants, Exposure, Evaluation, Study Design, Theory) inclusion criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment (CASP) were completed and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The Evidence of Reviews of Qualitative Research (CERQual) was used to evaluate confidence in the findings. We undertook a thematic synthesis using inductive methods for peer-reviewed papers. The evidence identified three types of distinct but overlapping conceptualisations of loneliness: social, emotional, and existential. We have high confidence in the evidence conceptualising social loneliness and moderate confidence in the evidence on emotional and existential loneliness. Our findings provide a more nuanced understanding of these diverse conceptualisations to inform more effective decision-making and intervention development to address the negative wellbeing impacts of loneliness.

Are we asking the right questions? Working with the LGBTQ+ community to prioritise healthcare research themes.

BACKGROUND: Conversations about research priorities with members of the public are rarely designed specifically to include people who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers. METHODS: Generally, to address this gap, and specifically, to inform future research for CLS, we carried out a rapid review of published research priority sets covering LGBTQ+ topics, and an online workshop to prioritise identified themes. RESULTS: Rapid review: results. The rapid review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five addressed transgender and gender non- conforming populations. All of the research priority sets originated from English-speaking, high and middle-income countries (UK, US, Canada, and Australia), and date from 2016 onwards. Prioritization approaches were wide-ranging from personal commentary to expert workshops and surveys. Participants involved in setting priorities mostly included research academics, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in this review were then grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop. Workshop: results. For the workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert to a public involvement in research matching website to take part in an online discussion workshop. Those that took part were offered payment for their time in preparing for the workshop and taking part. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to a consensus development process and a final ranked list of seven research themes and participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units added additional context. CONCLUSIONS: From the workshop the three research themes prioritised were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular challenges / intersectionality of multiple challenges for people identifying as LGBTQ+. Research themes interconnected in many ways and this was demonstrated by the comments from workshop participants. This paper offers insights into why these priorities were important from participants' perspectives and detail about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise. On a practical level these themes will directly inform future research direction for CLS.

Conversations about research priorities with members of the public who identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Queer (LGBTQ+) and are not researchers are not common.We reviewed published research priorities covering LGBTQ+ topics and held an online workshop. The review identified 18 LGBTQ+ research published priority sets. Some focussed on specific populations such as women or men, younger or older people or people living within families. Five were on transgender and gender non- conforming populations. Priorities were achieved by different methods such as workshops and surveys. People involved in setting priorities mostly included researchers, health practitioners and advocacy organisations, two studies involved LGBTQ+ public in their process. Research priorities identified in the review were grouped into themes which were prioritised during the workshop.For the online workshop, participants were recruited using local (Cambridge, UK) LGBTQ+ networks and a national advert and offered payment for their time. Participants personal priorities and experiences contributed to agreeing a final list of seven research themes in priority order. Participants' experiences of healthcare, mental health advocacy, care homes, caring responsibilities, schools and family units were helpful.From the workshop the three top research themes were: healthcare services delivery, prevention, and particular and multiple challenges of people identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer. Research themes interconnected in many ways as shown by the comments from workshop participants. This paper describes why these priorities were important from participants' perspective and offers information about how to run an inclusive and respectful public involvement research exercise.

Long-term conditions among sexual minority adults in England: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis of responses to the English GP Patient Survey.

BACKGROUND: Epidemiological evidence for specific long-term conditions is required to inform best practices regarding the substantial health inequalities experienced by sexual minority individuals compared with heterosexual peers. AIM: To describe inequalities in long-term conditions among sexual minority (lesbian, gay, and bisexual [LGB]) adults. DESIGN & SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of 1 341 339 nationally representative survey responses from the English GP Patient Survey (GPPS). METHOD: Stratifying by sex, the weighted prevalence and covariate-adjusted association of 15 long-term conditions were calculated, comparing sexual minority and heterosexual adults, considering variation by sexual orientation and variation in sexual orientation inequalities by deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age. RESULTS: After adjusting for deprivation, ethnic group, region, and age, 13 long-term conditions (all except cancer and hypertension) were more prevalent among sexual minority women than their heterosexual peers, with the largest inequalities for mental health problems (odds ratio [OR] 2.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.7 to 3.0), neurological conditions (OR 1.7, 95% CI = 1.5 to 1.8), dementia (OR 1.6, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.9), and back problems (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5). It was found that nine long-term conditions were also more prevalent among sexual minority men including mental health problems (OR 2.3, 95% CI = 2.2 to 2.4), 'all other conditions' (OR 1.8, 95% CI = 1.7 to 1.8), neurological conditions (OR 1.5, 95% CI = 1.4 to 1.6), and kidney or liver disease (OR 1.4, 95% CI = 1.3 to 1.5); inequalities were often largest for bisexual adults. Inequalities did not vary significantly by deprivation, ethnic group, or region except for mental health problems. Inequalities in multimorbidity were highest at younger ages; for example, LGB women aged 18-24 years had multimorbidity at the same level (approximately 20%) as heterosexual women aged 45-54 years. CONCLUSION: Sexual minority adults, especially bisexual adults, are at elevated risk for many long-term conditions and multimorbidity; this risk spans socioeconomic status and ethnic group, representing a significant healthcare challenge.

Sexual Orientation and the Incidence of COVID-19: Evidence from Understanding Society in the UK Longitudinal Household Study.

COVID-19 infection rates and severity are worse in marginalised groups, although, for sexual and gender minorities, there are no data on infections, hospitalisations or deaths, but there may be worse rates. This study uses information from Understanding Society: The UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to derive COVID-19 symptoms and positive tests by sexual orientation. Data came from all seven UKHLS COVID-19 survey waves in 2020 and 2021, and sexual orientation in main UKHLS waves 3 and 9. Numbers ranged from 17,800 to 12,000. Covariates in the regression models were gender, age, highest educational qualification, ethnicity, diagnosed medical condition, and key worker status. Compared to heterosexual individuals, more sexual minorities experienced symptoms, and bisexual individuals reported a greater number of symptoms. Gays and lesbians were no more or less likely to have been tested, but a larger proportion of bisexual individuals were tested. Regression models showed that differences mostly disappeared when other characteristics were considered. A small sample size means that principal questions remain, so health inequalities have been largely unnoticed and therefore not addressed. Suitable action should be taken to minimise their future risks. Why sexual and gender minorities have been omitted needs to be explored, and action needs to be taken to ensure this does not happen again.

Life under COVID-19 for LGBT+ people in the UK: systematic review of UK research on the impact of COVID-19 on sexual and gender minority populations.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all published and unpublished evidence on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the health and well-being of UK sexual and gender minority (LGBT+; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex and queer) people. METHODS: Any relevant studies with or without comparator were included, with outcomes of: COVID-19 incidence, hospitalisation rates, illness severity, death rates, other health and well-being. Six databases (platforms) were searched-CINAHL Plus (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Cochrane Library), Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Science Citation Index (Web of Science) and Scopus between 2019 and 2020 in December 2020, using synonyms for sexual and gender minorities and COVID-19 search terms. Data extraction and quality assessment (using the relevant Joanna Briggs checklist) were in duplicate with differences resolved through discussion. Results were tabulated and synthesis was through narrative description. RESULTS: No published research was found on any outcomes. Eleven grey literature reports found to be of low quality were included, mostly conducted by small LGBT+ charities. Only four had heterosexual/cisgender comparators. Mental health and well-being, health behaviours, safety, social connectedness and access to routine healthcare all showed poorer or worse outcomes than comparators. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of research gives significant concern, given pre-existing health inequities. Social and structural factors may have contributed to poorer outcomes (mental health, well-being and access to healthcare). Paucity of evidence is driven by lack of routinely collected sexual orientation and gender identity data, possibly resulting from institutional homophobia/transphobia which needs to be addressed. Men are more at risk of serious illness from COVID-19 than women, so using data from trans women and men might have started to answer questions around whether higher rates were due to sex hormone or chromosomal effects. Routine data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity is required to examine the extent to which COVID-19 is widening pre-existing health inequalities. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020224304.

International clinical practice guidelines for gender minority/trans people: systematic review and quality assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and critically appraise published clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) regarding healthcare of gender minority/trans people. DESIGN: Systematic review and quality appraisal using AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool), including stakeholder domain prioritisation. SETTING: Six databases and six CPG websites were searched, and international key opinion leaders approached. PARTICIPANTS: CPGs relating to adults and/or children who are gender minority/trans with no exclusions due to comorbidities, except differences in sex development. INTERVENTION: Any health-related intervention connected to the care of gender minority/trans people. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and quality of international CPGs addressing the health of gender minority/trans people, information on estimated changes in mortality or quality of life (QoL), consistency of recommended interventions across CPGs, and appraisal of key messages for patients. RESULTS: Twelve international CPGs address gender minority/trans people's healthcare as complete (n=5), partial (n=4) or marginal (n=3) focus of guidance. The quality scores have a wide range and heterogeneity whichever AGREE II domain is prioritised. Five higher-quality CPGs focus on HIV and other blood-borne infections (overall assessment scores 69%-94%). Six lower-quality CPGs concern transition-specific interventions (overall assessment scores 11%-56%). None deal with primary care, mental health or longer-term medical issues. Sparse information on estimated changes in mortality and QoL is conflicting. Consistency between CPGs could not be examined due to unclear recommendations within the World Professional Association for Transgender Health Standards of Care Version 7 and a lack of overlap between other CPGs. None provide key messages for patients. CONCLUSIONS: A paucity of high-quality guidance for gender minority/trans people exists, largely limited to HIV and transition, but not wider aspects of healthcare, mortality or QoL. Reference to AGREE II, use of systematic reviews, independent external review, stakeholder participation and patient facing material might improve future CPG quality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019154361.

Cervical screening attendance and cervical cancer risk among women who have sex with women.

OBJECTIVES: To describe cervical cancer screening participation among women who have sex exclusively with women (WSEW) and women who have sex with women and men (WSWM) compared with women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), and women who have never had sex and compare this with bowel (colorectal) and breast screening participation. To explore whether there is evidence of differential stage 3 cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN3) or cervical cancer risk. METHODS: We describe cervical, bowel and breast cancer screening uptake in age groups eligible for the national screening programmes, prevalent CIN3 and cervical cancer at baseline, and incident CIN3 and cervical cancer at five years follow-up, among 218,674 women in UK Biobank, a cohort of healthy volunteers from the UK. RESULTS: Compared with WSEM, in adjusted analysis [odds ratio (95% confidence interval)], WSEW 0.10 (0.08-0.13), WSWM 0.73 (0.58-0.91), and women who have never had sex 0.02 (0.01-0.02) were less likely to report ever having attended cervical screening. There were no differences when considering bowel cancer screening uptake (p = 0.61). For breast cancer screening, attendance was lower among WSWM 0.79 (0.68 to 0.91) and women who have never had sex 0.47 (0.29-0.58), compared with WSEM. There were incident and prevalent cases of both CIN3 and cervical cancer among WSEW and WSWM. Compared with WSEM with a single male partner, among WSEW there was a twofold increase in CIN3 1.91 (1.01 to 3.59); among WSWM with only one male partner, this was 2.25 (1.19 to 4.24). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the importance of improving uptake of cervical screening among all women who have sex with women and breast screening among WSWM and women who have never had sex.

Systems approach to health service design, delivery and improvement: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the evidence base for a systems approach to healthcare design, delivery or improvement. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analyses. METHODS: Included were studies in any patients, in any healthcare setting where a systems approach was compared with usual care which reported quantitative results for any outcomes for both groups. We searched Medline, Embase, HMIC, Health Business Elite, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL from inception to 28 May 2019 for relevant studies. These were screened, and data extracted independently and in duplicate. Study outcomes were stratified by study design and whether they reported patient and/or service outcomes. Meta-analysis was conducted with Revman software V.5.3 using ORs-heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics. RESULTS: Of 11 405 records 35 studies were included, of which 28 (80%) were before-and-after design only, five were both before-and-after and concurrent design, and two were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was heterogeneity of interventions and wide variation in reported outcome types. Almost all results showed health improvement where systems approaches were used. Study quality varied widely. Exploratory meta-analysis of these suggested favourable effects on both patient outcomes (n=14, OR=0.52 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.71) I2=91%), and service outcomes (n=18, OR=0.40 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.52) I2=97%). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a systems approaches to healthcare design and delivery results in a statistically significant improvement to both patient and service outcomes. However, better quality studies, particularly RCTs are needed.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017065920.

The role of social capital in participatory arts for wellbeing: findings from a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Social capital is often cited as shaping impacts of participatory arts, although the concept has not been systematically mapped in arts, health and wellbeing contexts. In wider health inequalities research, complex, differential, and sometimes negative impacts of social capital have been recognised. METHODS: This paper maps of social capital concepts in qualitative research as part of the UK What Works for Wellbeing evidence review programme on culture, sport and wellbeing. RESULTS: Studies often cite positive impacts of bonding and, to a lesser extent, bridging social capital. However, reported challenges suggest the need for a critical approach. Forms of linking social capital, such as reframing and political engagement to address social divisions, are less often cited but may be important in participatory arts and wellbeing. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should further specify dimensions of social capital as well as their nuanced effects in arts, and wellbeing contexts.

Sex Hormone Levels in Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Women: Systematic Review and Exploratory Meta-Analysis.

Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. We systematically reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO-CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any relevant empirical studies published within the last 50 years reporting any circulating sex hormones in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no language or setting restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted where five or more studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14 studies of mixed designs included, 12 in women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and included androstenedione, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hormones. Most studies were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I2 = 84%). This was the only difference found. We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from 50 years to date, suggests little discernable difference in sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale primary study would be required before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications.

The effectiveness of community-based social innovations for healthy ageing in middle- and high-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Community-based social innovations (CBSIs) are one type of intervention that may help to address the complex needs of ageing populations globally. The aim of this research was to assess evidence for the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of CBSIs involving in such contexts. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of CBSIs for healthy ageing in middle- and high-income countries, including any CBSI that aimed to empower people aged 50 and over by motivating them to take initiative for their own health and wellbeing. The protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD 42016051622). A comprehensive search was conducted in 15 academic databases and advanced search in Google. We included published studies from 2000 onwards in any language. Exploratory meta-analysis was conducted for quantitative studies reporting similar outcomes, and qualitative studies were analysed using thematic analysis. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Searches yielded 13,262 unique hits, from which 44 papers met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Most studies reported interventions having positive impacts on participants, such as reduced depression, though the majority of studies were classified as being at medium or high risk of bias. There was no evidence on costs or cost-effectiveness and very little reporting of outcomes at an organization or system level. CBSIs have the potential for positive impacts, but with nearly half of studies coming from high-income urban settings (particularly the United Kingdom and the United States of America), there is a lack of generalizability of these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our research highlights the need to improve reporting of CBSIs as complex interventions, and for improved conceptualization of these interventions to inform research and practice.

A Systematic Review of UK Educational and Training Materials Aimed at Health and Social Care Staff about Providing Appropriate Services for LGBT+ People.

BACKGROUND: There is greater dissatisfaction with health services by LGBT people compared to heterosexual and cisgender people and some of this is from lack of equality and diversity training for health professionals. Core training standards in sexual orientation for health professionals have been available since 2006. The purpose of this project is to systematically review educational materials for health and social care professionals in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. METHODS: A protocol was developed and searches conducted in six databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: any studies reporting delivery or evaluation of UK education of health and/or social care professionals in LGBT issues, with no language or setting restrictions. Inclusions and data extraction were conducted in duplicate. Narrative synthesis of educational evaluations was used. Educational materials were assessed using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: From the searches, 165 full papers were evaluated and 19 studies were included in the narrative synthesis. Three were successful action-research projects in cancer services and in residential care. Sixteen sets of educational/training materials have been available since 2010. These varied in length, scope, target audience, and extent of development as classroom-ready materials. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the availability of appropriate training programmes for post-qualifying staff, recommendations to undertake training, best practice examples, and statements of good intent, LGBT people continue to report that they are experiencing discrimination or direct prejudice from health and/or social care services. Better training strategies using behaviour change techniques are needed.

A Systematic Review of Sexual Minority Women's Experiences of Health Care in the UK.

Sexual minority women (SMW) experience worse health and disproportionate behavioural risks to health than heterosexual women. This mixed-methods systematic review evaluated recent studies on health experiences of UK SMW, published 2010-2018. Analysis was through narrative thematic description and synthesis. Identified were 23,103 citations, 26 studies included, of which 22 provided qualitative and nine quantitative results. SMW had worse health experiences that might impact negatively on access, service uptake and health outcomes. Findings highlighted significant barriers facing SMW, including heteronormative assumptions, perceptions and experiences of negative responses to coming out, ignorance and prejudice from healthcare professionals, and barriers to raising concerns or complaints. Little information was available about bisexual and trans women's issues. Findings highlighted the need for explicit and consistent education for healthcare professionals on SMW issues, and stronger application of non-discrimination policies in clinical settings.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.

Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) for chronic pain - an overview of Cochrane Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pain, considered to be pain lasting more than three months, is a common and often difficult to treat condition that can significantly impact upon function and quality of life. Treatment typically includes pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) is an adjunct non-pharmacological treatment commonly recommended by clinicians and often used by people with pain. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the effectiveness of TENS to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To provide an overview of evidence from Cochrane Reviews of the safety of TENS when used to reduce pain in adults with chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine).To identify possible sources of inconsistency in the approaches taken to evaluating the evidence related to TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) in the Cochrane Library with a view to recommending strategies to improve consistency in methodology and reporting.To highlight areas of remaining uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of TENS for chronic pain (excluding headache or migraine) with a view to recommending strategies to reduce any uncertainty. METHODS: Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), in the Cochrane Library, across all years up to Issue 11 of 12, 2018.Selection of reviewsTwo authors independently screened the results of the electronic search by title and abstract against inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included all Cochrane Reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effectiveness of TENS in people with chronic pain. We included reviews if they investigated the following: TENS versus sham; TENS versus usual care or no treatment/waiting list control; TENS plus active intervention versus active intervention alone; comparisons between different types of TENS; or TENS delivered using different stimulation parameters.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted relevant data, assessed review quality using the AMSTAR checklist and applied GRADE judgements where required to individual reviews. Our primary outcomes included pain intensity and nature/incidence of adverse effects; our secondary outcomes included disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine reviews investigating TENS use in people with defined chronic pain or in people with chronic conditions associated with ongoing pain. One review investigating TENS for phantom or stump-associated pain in people following amputation did not have any included studies. We therefore extracted data from eight reviews which represented 51 TENS-related RCTs representing 2895 TENS-comparison participants entered into the studies.The included reviews followed consistent methods and achieved overall high scores on the AMSTAR checklist. The evidence reported within each review was consistently rated as very low quality. Using review authors' assessment of risk of bias, there were significant methodological limitations in included studies; and for all reviews, sample sizes were consistently small (the majority of studies included fewer than 50 participants per group).Six of the eight reviews presented a narrative synthesis of included studies. Two reviews reported a pooled analysis.Primary and secondary outcomes One review reported a beneficial effect of TENS versus sham therapy at reducing pain intensity on a 0 to 10 scale (MD -1.58, 95% CI -2.08 to -1.09, P < 0.001, I² = 29%, P = 0.22, 5 studies, 207 participants). However the quality of the evidence was very low due to significant methodological limitations and imprecision. A second review investigating pain intensity performed a pooled analysis by combining studies that compared TENS to sham with studies that compared TENS to no intervention (SMD -0.85, 95% CI -1.36 to -0.34, P = 0.001, I² = 83%, P < 0.001). This pooled analysis was judged as offering very low quality evidence due to significant methodological limitations, large between-trial heterogeneity and imprecision. We considered the approach of combining sham and no intervention data to be problematic since we would predict these different comparisons may be estimating different true effects. All remaining reviews also reported pain intensity as an outcome measure; however the data were presented in narrative review form only.Due to methodological limitation and lack of useable data, we were unable to offer any meaningful report on the remaining primary outcome regarding nature/incidence of adverse effects, nor for the remaining secondary outcomes: disability, health-related quality of life, analgesic medication use and participant global impression of change for any comparisons.We found the included reviews had a number of inconsistencies when evaluating the evidence from TENS studies. Approaches to assessing risk of bias around the participant, personnel and outcome-assessor blinding were perhaps the most obvious area of difference across included reviews. We also found wide variability in terms of primary and secondary outcome measures, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for studies varied with respect to including studies which assessed immediate effects of single interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found the methodological quality of the reviews was good, but quality of the evidence within them was very low. We were therefore unable to conclude with any confidence that, in people with chronic pain, TENS is harmful, or beneficial for pain control, disability, health-related quality of life, use of pain relieving medicines, or global impression of change. We make recommendations with respect to future TENS study designs which may meaningfully reduce the uncertainty relating to the effectiveness of this treatment in people with chronic pain.