Black Sexual Minority Adults' Avoidance of Professional Mental Health Care.

OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine whether Black sexual minority individuals were more likely than White sexual minority individuals to postpone or avoid professional mental health care (PMHC) and, if so, to identify the reasons for postponing or avoiding care. METHODS: Analyses were conducted with a subsample of cisgender Black (N=78) and White (N=398) sexual minority individuals from a larger survey of U.S. adults administered via MTurk in 2020 (N=1,012). Logistic regression models were used to identify racial differences in overall postponement or avoidance of care as well as differences in the prevalence of each of nine reasons for postponing or avoiding care. RESULTS: Black sexual minority individuals were more likely than their White counterparts to report ever postponing or avoiding PMHC (average marginal effect [AME]=13.7 percentage points, 95% CI=5.4-21.9). Black sexual minority people also were more likely than their White counterparts to cite beliefs that they should work out their problems on their own (AME=13.1 percentage points, 95% CI=1.2-24.9) or with family and friends (AME=17.5 percentage points, 95% CI=6.0-29.1) and to cite providers' refusal to treat them (AME=17.4 percentage points, 95% CI=7.6-27.1) as reasons for postponing or avoiding care. CONCLUSIONS: Black sexual minority individuals were more likely than their White counterparts to report delaying or avoiding PMHC. Personal beliefs about managing mental health and providers' refusal to offer treatment influenced Black sexual minority individuals' willingness or ability to seek PMHC.

Assessing the Implementation of an LGBTQ+ Mental Health Services Training Program to Determine Feasibility and Acceptability During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Despite significant social and legal progress, LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and other sexual and gender minority) populations continue to experience higher rates of mental health and substance use disorders than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Effective LGBTQ+ affirmative mental health care is essential for addressing these disparities but is often limited and difficult to access. The shortage of LGBTQ+ affirmative mental health care providers results from the absence of required and accessible LGBTQ+-focused training and technical assistance opportunities for mental health care professionals. This study evaluates the implementation of our COVID-19 adapted, completely virtual, organization- and therapist-focused training program to improve the mental health workforce's cultural competence in working with the LGBTQ+ community: the Sexual and Gender Diversity Learning Community (SGDLC). Guided by an expanded RE-AIM model, we used administrator and therapist feedback to assess SGDLC implementation factors to understand how it may be best translated for scaled-up promotion and widespread adoption. Assessment of the initial reach, adoption, and implementation of the SGDLC indicated that it had strong feasibility; reports on satisfaction and relevance support the SGDLC's acceptability. Maintenance could not be fully assessed from the short study follow-up period. Still, administrators and therapists expressed an intent to continue their newfound practices, a desire for continued training and technical assistance in this area, but also concerns about finding additional opportunities for this education.

What motivates community mental and behavioral health organizations to participate in LGBTQ+ cultural competency trainings?

The constantly evolving language, understanding, and cultural context regarding the mental health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender diverse individuals (LGBTQ+) require mental health providers to obtain LGBTQ+ cultural competency training to be affirmative and effective with this population. Unfortunately, many providers are not obtaining this ongoing training and mental health disparities continue to plague LGBTQ+ populations. Guided by the Consolidation Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we conducted eight focus groups with community mental and behavioral health organization (MBHO) administrators (e.g., directors, clinical supervisors) and therapists to explore what factors facilitated or inhibited their adoption and implementation of a multicomponent LGBTQ+ cultural competency training program that required administrator and therapist participation in multiple learning sessions over several months (i.e., workshop, clinical consultation, and organizational technical assistance). Results from template analysis supported CFIR-aligned themes, including characteristics of individuals, inner setting, outer setting, and process, and two additional codes-marketing and other/previous training opportunities-emerged from the focus group data. Findings suggest that therapists are motivated to engage in such a program because they want to feel more efficacious, and administrators see the benefits of LGBTQ+ training programs for their clientele and marketing. Barriers to adoption and implementation include cost and personnel resistance, although participants believed these barriers were surmountable. Emphasizing therapist efficacy, clientele need, and benefits for marketing mental and behavioral health services could motivate MBHOs' and therapists' adoption and implementation of LGBTQ+ cultural competency training. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Colorectal cancer knowledge and perceptions among individuals below the age of 50.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) rates are increasing in individuals below the age of 50 and this trend has been projected to continue for the foreseeable future. Health officials are calling for increased awareness of rising rates in affected populations to promote discussion and early detection. METHODS: In May 2018, we surveyed an online purposive sample of adults below the age of 50 (N = 624). We conducted an exploratory analysis examining knowledge of current CRC screening guidelines, knowledge of available CRC screening methods, perceived risk of CRC, and perceived importance of screening for CRC by gender, race, and previous CRC screening activity. RESULTS: The sample was 56% female, averaged 36 years of age, largely identified as Caucasian (84%), married (48%), and well educated (70% with some college or a college degree). 36% correctly identified the current age of recommended CRC screening initiation. Few (8%) correctly identified all CRC screening options presented. Genetics was thought to be the most relevant determinant of CRC. African American or black participants perceived themselves to be at lower risk of CRC, while women rated the importance of screening significantly lower than men. CONCLUSION: We identified a lack of CRC knowledge in individuals below the age of 50. Interventions should correct perceptions of risk of CRC and highlight the importance of screening. Complete knowledge of the range of screening options may reduce barriers to screening while a greater knowledge of modifiable risk factors of CRC can promote healthy behaviors.

"It is just another test they want to do": Patient and caregiver understanding of the colonoscopy procedure.

OBJECTIVE: Colonoscopy is a complex procedure that requires bowel preparation, sedation, and has the potential for substantial risk. Given this, we investigated colonoscopy patients' perceived and actual understanding of the procedure. METHODS: Consecutive colonoscopy patients were enrolled and surveyed, with their caregivers, immediately prior to their procedure. Demographics, health literacy, socioeconomic status and perceived risks/benefits were assessed. Thematic analysis was conducted on open-ended responses and a 3-level outcome variable was created to categorize correctness of patients' and caregivers' understanding. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine predictors of response level. RESULTS: Patients (N=1821) were 77% White, 60% female, and averaged 54 years old; caregivers were demographically similar. Among patients, bivariate analysis revealed that younger age, minority race, and low income, education, and health literacy were associated with incomplete understanding. Multinomial regression revealed that age, education, health literacy, first-time colonoscopy, and perceived risk-benefit difference discriminated among groups. Bivariate and multinomial results for caregivers were similar. CONCLUSION: Patients and caregivers varied on information, understanding and misconceptions about colonoscopy. Implications are discussed for inadequate: 1. informed consent, 2. bowel preparation, and 3. emotional preparation for cancer detection or adverse events. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Attention should be paid to patients' understanding of the purpose, anatomy, and logistics of colonoscopy, preferably prior to bowel preparation.

Pathways to colonoscopy in the South: seeds of health disparities.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to highlight sociodemographic differences in how patients access colonoscopy. METHODS: We invited all eligible patients (n = 2500) from 2 academy-affiliated colonoscopy centers in Alachua County, Florida (1 free standing, 1 hospital based), to participate in a precolonoscopy survey (September 2011-October 2013); patients agreeing to participate (n = 1841, response rate = 73.6%) received a $5.00 gift card. RESULTS: We found sociodemographic differences in referral pathway, costs, and reasons associated with obtaining the procedure. Patients with the ideal pathway (referred by their regular doctor for age-appropriate screening) were more likely to be Black (compared with other minorities), male, high income, employed, and older. Having the colonoscopy because of symptoms was associated with being female, younger, and having lower income. We found significant differences for 1 previously underestimated barrier, having a spouse to accompany the patient to the procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' facilitators and barriers to colonoscopy differed by sociodemographics in our study, which implies that interventions based on a single facilitator will not be effective for all subgroups of a population.