LGBTQ Youth and Young Adult Perspectives on a Culturally Tailored Group Smoking Cessation Program

Abstract

IntroductionThe prevalence of smoking among LGBTQ youth and young adults (YYAs) is much higher than that of non-LGBTQ young people. The current study explored LGBTQ YYA perceptions of a culturally tailored group smoking cessation counselling program, along with how the intervention could be improved.MethodsWe conducted focus groups (n = 24) with 204 LGBTQ YYAs in Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Open-ended questions focused on their feelings, likes and dislikes, concerns and additional ideas for a culturally tailored group cessation counselling intervention. Focus group transcripts were coded thematically and analyzed.ResultsOverall, YYAs were ambivalent towards the concept of a culturally tailored, group cessation counselling program. Although several participants were attracted to the LGBTQ friendly and social benefits of such a program (eg, good support system), many also had concerns. Particularly, the possibility that other group members might trigger them to smoke was a frequently stated issue. Focus group members also noted lack of motivation to attend the group, and that the group program may be inaccessible depending on where and when the program was offered. Several suggestions were made as to how to ameliorate the expressed issues related to inaccessibility or lack of attractiveness.ConclusionsThis study is among the first to gain the perspectives of LGBTQ YYAs on culturally tailored group cessation strategies in Canada. We identified components of group cessation programs that are both favored and not favored among LGBTQ YYAs, as well as suggestions as to how to make group cessation programs more appealing.ImplicationsThis study is particularly relevant as smoking cessation programs are one of the most commonly offered and published cessation interventions for the LGBTQ community, yet little is understood in terms of preferences of LGBTQ YYA smokers. Given the disparity in the prevalence of smoking among LGBTQ young people compared to their non-LGBTQ peers, research on effective intervention strategies for this population is needed. Findings from this study can assist practitioners and researchers in designing interventions.

Targeting cancer prevention and screening interventions to LGBTQ communities: A scoping review

“…The 20 articles included in this scoping review reported on 15 intervention programs, including a smoking cessation intervention for 'LGBT' smokers reported in two articles (Matthews, Breen, et al, 2019;Matthews, Steffen, et al, 2019), and a smoking cessation intervention for young LGBTQ people reported in three articles (Ramo et al, 2019;. Three of the articles described a single study that evaluated the acceptability of three hypothetical interventions, rather than delivery of actual interventions (Baskerville et al, 2016(Baskerville et al, , 2017(Baskerville et al, , 2018. We have organised the types of intervention described across this review into three categories: therapeutic (interventions based in clinic settings or involving therapeutic modalities; n = 9), online (interventions delivered via digital platforms and technologies; n = 7) and scene-based (interventions that took place at the material sites in which LGBTQ communities interact socially; n = 3).…”

“…LGBTQ people who were already engaged with existing clinical or support programs (van den Berg et al, 2014;Grady et al, 2014). In terms of who was targeted, half of the articles (n = 10) were inclusive of both sexuality and gender diversity by recruiting 'LGBT' (Fallin et al, 2015;Matthews, Breen, et al, 2019;Matthews, Steffen, et al, 2019), 'LBGTQ' or 'LGBTQ+' (Baskerville et al, 2017(Baskerville et al, , 2018Ramo et al, 2019) or 'sexual and gender minority' participants (Grady et al, 2014;Vogel, Belohlavek, et al, 2019;Vogel, Thrul, et al, 2019). The remaining half of the articles (n = 10) targeted specific subpopulations: young gay and bisexual men (GBM) (Thompson et al, 2015), who were HIV negative or of unknown HIV status (van…”

“…There were some imprecise definitions regarding recruitment among the more inclusive groups, including one article that specified the targeting of 'sexual minorities' but which included participants who were 'transgender'; however, this should not be considered a sexuality (Schwinn et al, 2015). Of the studies that included focus group methodologies (Baskerville et al, 2017(Baskerville et al, , 2018Ramo et al, 2019), we found that recruitment was inclusive of gender diversity (e.g. transgender men and women, two-spirit, genderqueer, and other gender diverse people) and yet analyses were not reported separately due to relatively small numbers of participants.…”

“…Of the articles that reported a breakdown by demographic characteristics, the samples rarely contained equal representation of gender and sexuality diversity. For example, articles reporting on smoking cessation interventions for young LGBTQ people comprised a higher number of female bisexual participants (Baskerville et al, 2016(Baskerville et al, , 2017(Baskerville et al, , 2018Ramo et al, 2019;Vogel, Belohlavek, et al, 2019), while interventions delivered to LBGTQ people regardless of age had higher proportions of gay men (Matthews, Breen, et al, 2019;Matthews, Steffen, et al, 2019). Five studies in this scoping review included largely Caucasian participants in their samples of LGBTQ individuals (van den Berg et al, 2014;Grady et al, 2014;Matthews, Breen, et al, 2019;Matthews, Steffen, et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2015) and therefore are not easily generalisable or applicable to other or intersecting subpopulations.…”

“…Adaptations of existing programs were mostly applied in the context of therapeutic interventions (Baskerville et al, 2017;Butame et al, 2017;Dickson-Spillmann et al, 2014;Kahler et al, 2018;Matthews, Breen, et al, 2019;Matthews, Steffen, et al, 2019;Thompson et al, 2015), along with adaptations of online programs (Aharonovich et al, 2017;Baskerville et al, 2016;McRee et al, 2018;Ramo et al, 2019;Schwinn et al, 2015;Vogel, Belohlavek, et al, 2019;Vogel, Thrul, et al, 2019). There was little consistency in the intervention elements modified for use with LGBTQ populations.…”