Cancer Screening Considerations and Cancer Screening Uptake for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Persons.
Marc Ceres, Gwendolyn P Quinn, Matthew Loscalzo and 1 others
PMID 29325817WHAT IT FOUND
LGBT people often face discrimination, cost barriers, and lower uptake of some cancer screens.
Nurses can ask about sexual orientation and gender identity, screen based on organs present, counsel risk, and connect patients to supportive care.
Key findings
01There are no definitive cancer screening guidelines specific to LGBT persons beyond general population recommendations.
02Twenty-eight percent of transgender individuals reported delaying needed medical care because of fear of discrimination.
03Cervical cancer screening was reported by 73.6% of lesbian, 81.8% of straight, and 79.8% of bisexual women in 2015 national survey data.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
This is a narrative review, not a trial or systematic review, so it does not test whether nurse counseling or screening changes improve outcomes. Screening uptake data come from national surveys and observational studies, so they cannot show that asking about sexual orientation and gender identity causes better screening. Many medical intake forms do not collect sexual orientation and gender identity, so the reported screening rates may not capture all LGBT patients. The evidence is mixed: some studies report lower screening for some groups and screens, while other survey data report higher screening rates in some groups. Some recommendations, such as more aggressive prostate-specific antigen screening in certain populations, are expert suggestions rather than tested interventions.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as proof that asking about sexual orientation and gender identity improves cancer screening outcomes. It is a narrative review of observational studies and recommendations, and it reports no tested intervention or primary outcome.