Purpose Cancer research on sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations is gaining momentum. The purpose of this systematic review was to examine what is currently known in the research literature regarding patient-reported health outcomes after cancer treatment among SGM populations. Methods In March 2021, a medical librarian conducted a systematic keyword search on PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The primary inclusion criterion was assessment of at least one physical, psychosocial, emotional, or functional patient-reported health outcome related to the impacts of cancer diagnosis and/or treatment. Articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed in their entirety, charted in a Word Table, and assessed for quality. Quality considerations included study design, sampling approach, diversity of sample, measures used, and analytic procedures. Studies were synthesized based on type of cancer study participants experienced. Results Sixty-four studies were included in the final analysis: most were quantitative, secondary analyses or cross-sectional studies with convenience samples, and focused on people with a history of breast or prostate cancer. Differences between sexual minority men and women in terms of coping and resilience were noted. Few studies reported on experiences of transgender persons and none reported on experiences of intersex persons. Conclusions A growing literature describes the patient-reported health outcomes of SGM people with a history of cancer. This study summarizes important between-group differences among SGM and heterosexual, cisgender counterparts that are critical for clinicians to consider when providing care. Implications for cancer survivors Sexual orientation and gender identity are relevant to cancer survivors’ health outcomes. Subgroups of SGM people have differential experiences and outcomes related to cancer and its impacts.

No abstract

Sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals encompass a broad spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities. Although SGM is a research term, this population is often known as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer (LGBTQ). Typically, LGB refers to sexual orientation, T refers to gender identity, and Q may refer to either. Although each group is distinct, they share the common bond of experiencing health disparities that may be caused, in part, by stigma and discrimination, as well as by the oncology provider’s lack of knowledge and, therefore, lack of comfort in treating this population. One challenge in improving the quality of care for SGM patients with cancer is the lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in the medical record. Furthermore, national studies suggest that many oncologists are unsure of what to do with this information, even when it is collected, and some are uncertain as to why they would need to know the SOGI of their patients. This clinical review offers insight into the health disparities experienced by SGM individuals and strategies for improving the clinical encounter and creating a welcoming environment.

Background The 21st Century Cures Act and the OpenNotes movement have brought patients immediate access to their electronic health records (EHRs). The experiences of marginalized people, including transgender people, accessing and reviewing their EHRs could inform documentation guidelines to improve patient-clinician rapport and reduce harm. Objective To investigate the experiences of transgender people reviewing EHRs. Design Qualitative study using community-engaged research and an interpretive description methodology. Participants were recruited via social media, snowball sampling was employed, and purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity in terms of age, race/ethnicity, and other factors. In focus groups, participants were asked to discuss their experiences reviewing their EHRs and, for those participants who were clinicians, their experiences reviewing other clinicians’ documentation. Participants Thirty transgender adults aged 20 to 67 years, including 10 clinicians. Approach: Digital audio-recordings of focus groups were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements and analysis was continued until no new themes emerged (i.e., saturation). Key Results Four themes were noted. (1) Using the wrong name, pronoun, or gender marker for patients is common in the EHR, erodes trust, and causes trauma. (2) Various aspects of clinicians’ notes contradict, blame, or stigmatize patients, across multiple axes of oppression. (3) Limitations of EHR capabilities create barriers to quality care. (4) Certain medical customs set the stage for marginalizing, objectifying, and pathologizing transgender people. Conclusions Transgender people experience harm via various aspects of EHR documentation, suggesting that changes must be made to improve patient-clinician relationships and reduce ill-effects for patients.