An Exploration of the Perspectives and Experiences of General Practitioners in Barbados in Relation to Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Patients

Rambarran, Nastassia; Grenfell, Pippa

doi:10.1080/19317611.2016.1223255

Cited by 8 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Egalitarian practitioners who use the ‘same yardstick’ to address the concerns of their patients are implicitly signaling a cis-heteronormative subject position, which does not acknowledge the unique needs of their LGBTQI patients ( 1 , 14 ). This is not following guidelines for equitable person-centered care ( 66 ), and serves to render LGBTQI patients and their carers invisible ( 84 ). Cis-heteronormative assumptions on the part of oncology HCPs and absence of opportunities for SOGI disclosure are associated with LGBTQI patient dissatisfaction with healthcare ( 4 , 12 ) and anxiety about disclosure of SOGI status ( 4 , 12 – 14 ), and this was confirmed by patients and carers in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LGBTQI Inclusive Cancer Care: A Discourse Analytic Study of Health Care Professional, Patient and Carer Perspectives

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAwareness of the specific needs of LGBTQI cancer patients has led to calls for inclusivity, cultural competence, cultural safety and cultural humility in cancer care. Examination of oncology healthcare professionals’ (HCP) perspectives is central to identifying barriers and facilitators to inclusive LGBTQI cancer care.Study AimThis study examined oncology HCPs perspectives in relation to LGBTQI cancer care, and the implications of HCP perspectives and practices for LGBTQI patients and their caregivers.Method357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%) and leadership (11%) positions took part in a survey; 48 HCPs completed an interview. 430 LGBTQI patients, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status, and 132 carers completed a survey, and 104 LGBTQI patients and 31 carers undertook an interview. Data were analysed using thematic discourse analysis.ResultsThree HCP subject positions – ways of thinking and behaving in relation to the self and LGBTQI patients – were identified:’Inclusive and reflective’ practitioners characterized LGBTQI patients as potentially vulnerable and offered inclusive care, drawing on an affirmative construction of LGBTQI health. This resulted in LGBTQI patients and their carers feeling safe and respected, willing to disclose sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) status, and satisfied with cancer care. ‘Egalitarian practitioners’ drew on discourses of ethical responsibility, positioning themselves as treating all patients the same, not seeing the relevance of SOGI information. This was associated with absence of LGBTQI-specific information, patient and carer anxiety about disclosure of SOGI, feelings of invisibility, and dissatisfaction with healthcare. ‘Anti-inclusive’ practitioners’ expressed open hostility and prejudice towards LGBTQI patients, reflecting a cultural discourse of homophobia and transphobia. This was associated with patient and carer distress, feelings of negative judgement, and exclusion of same-gender partners.ConclusionDerogatory views and descriptions of LGBTQI patients, and cis-normative practices need to be challenged, to ensure that HCPs offer inclusive and affirmative care. Building HCP’s communicative competence to work with LGBTQI patients needs to become an essential part of basic training and ongoing professional development. Visible indicators of LGBTQI inclusivity are essential, alongside targeted resources and information for LGBTQI people.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LGBTQI Inclusive Cancer Care: A Discourse Analytic Study of Health Care Professional, Patient and Carer Perspectives

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La riqueza del estudio estuvo en retomar una categoría ampliamente estudiada en diversos tópicos, en un tema de identidades de géneros, con la participación de un grupo importante de profesionales de la salud y las ciencias sociales (45) y en un espacio de discusión amplio, alrededor de dos preguntas guía. Usualmente, los estudios con profesionales tienen a ser cuantitativos o cualitativos, pero bastante estructurados y cuentan con pocos participantes y una relativa profundidad (Borba, 2019;Bristol et al, 2018;Clark et al, 2017;Eckstein et al, 2019;Rambarran y Grenfell, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified