Guidelines for cervical cancer screening have evolved rapidly over the last several years, with a trend toward longer intervals between screenings and an increasing number of screening options, such as Pap/HPV co-testing and HPV testing as a primary screening. However, gynecological recommendations often do not include clinical considerations specific to patients on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum. Both patients and providers may not accurately assess risk for HPV and other sexually transmitted infections, understand barriers to care, or be aware of recommendations for cervical cancer screening and other appropriate sexual and reproductive health services for this patient population. We review the evidence and provide guidance on minimizing emotional discomfort before, during, and after a pelvic exam, minimizing physical discomfort during the exam, and making adaptations to account for testosterone-induced anatomical changes common among FTM patients.

Gender minority-related stressors, particularly enacted and anticipated stigma in healthcare, should be integrated into substance use and abuse prevention and intervention efforts with this underserved population.

Transmasculine (i.e., female-to-male transgender) individuals have lower rates of cervical cancer screening than nontransgender women and often report negative experiences with the Pap test. Deciding to undergo screening and the test experience itself are characterized by the following processes: negotiating identity as the patient, provider, and insurance company wrestle with the degree of (in)congruence between a patient's masculine gender identity and their conception of the Pap test as feminine; bargaining for health as a Pap test may be required to obtain medical transition services or avoid undesired health outcomes; withstanding acute challenges during the Pap test to body, identity, and privacy; or reframing challenges as affirmation. The degree of distress triggered by the Pap test varied from "routine" to traumatic. Participants affirmed that a trusted, trans-competent health care provider could significantly reduce barriers to regular and satisfactory cervical cancer screening. Data are from 32 in-depth interviews conducted in Boston, Massachusetts, with transmasculine individuals; a modified grounded theory approach informed the analysis.

Online focus group discussions provide an anonymous environment to assess sensitive, health-related experiences that may be difficult to discuss utilizing traditional face-to-face modalities, particularly for marginalized populations such as female-to-male trans masculine (TM) transgender individuals. This article reviews the history, advantages, and disadvantages of online focus groups, with an emphasis for research about sensitive issues with stigmatized, rare, and/or geographically dispersed patient populations. The article then evaluates the success of online focus group discussions as a case study using data from four asynchronous online focus groups conducted between September 2015 and February 2016 that explored topics related to sexual health care access with U.S. TM adults (N = 29). The rationale for selecting an asynchronous online methodology is described along with the unique methodological considerations that emerged in developing the study protocol. We conclude by sharing lessons learned, including innovations for maximizing participant engagement and comfort to elicit rich qualitative data.

BackgroundHigh-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) causes virtually all cervical cancers. Trans masculine (TM) people (those assigned female at birth who identify with a gender other than female) have low uptake of conventional cervical cancer screening. Self-collected hrHPV DNA testing has high levels of acceptability among cisgender (non-transgender) females and may support increased cervical cancer screening uptake in TM individuals.ObjectiveTo assess the test performance and acceptability of self-collected vaginal specimens in comparison to provider-collected cervical swabs for hrHPV DNA detection in TM individuals ages 21–64 years.MethodsBetween March 2015-September 2016, 150 TM participants with a cervix (mean age = 27.5 years; SD = 5.7) completed a one-time study visit comprised of a self-report survey, self-collected vaginal HPV DNA swab, clinician-administered cervical HPV swab, and brief interview on acceptability of clinical procedures. Participants were randomized to complete either self- or provider-collection first to minimize ordering effects. Self- and provider-collected samples were tested for 13 hrHPV DNA types using a DNA Hybridization Assay. The primary outcome variable was the concordance (kappa statistic) and performance (sensitivity, specificity) of self-collected vaginal HPV DNA specimens versus provider-collected cervical HPV swabs as the gold standard.ResultsOf the 131 participants completing both the self- and provider-collected HPV tests, 21 cases of hrHPV were detected by the provider cervical swab (gold standard; 16.0% hrHPV prevalence); 15 of these cases were accurately detected by the self-collected vaginal swab (71.4% concordance) (Kappa = 0.75, 95% Confidence Interval [CI]: 0.59, 0.92; p<0.001). Compared to the provider-collected cervical hrHPV DNA sample (gold standard), the self-collected vaginal hrHPV DNA test demonstrated a sensitivity of 71.4% (95% CI: 0.52, 0.91; p = 0.0495) and specificity of 98.2% (95% CI: 0.96, 1.00; p<0.0001). Over 90% of participants endorsed a preference for the self-collected vaginal swab over provider-collected cervical swab.ConclusionSelf-collected vaginal swabs are highly acceptable to TM as a means to test for hrHPV DNA. Test performance of this self-collection method for hrHPV detection in TM is consistent with previous studies in cisgender females. Self-collected vaginal swab testing for hrHPV DNA represents a reasonable and patient-centered strategy for primary cervical cancer screening in TM patients unwilling to undergo provider collection of specimens via speculum exam.