Older LGBT Adult Training Panels: An Opportunity to Educate About Issues Faced by the Older LGBT Community

Abstract

Older lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults face unique issues that can impede their well-being. Although many advances have helped address these issues, there is a need for education efforts that raise awareness of service providers about these issues. This study explores evaluation data of training panels provided by older LGBT adults and the views of training participants on issues faced by the older LGBT community after attending the panels. Participants were 605 students and professionals from over 34 education and communication settings. Implications for trainings on participants and older LGBT trainers are discussed.

Cognitive Impairment, Alzheimer’s Disease, and Other Dementias in the Lives of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Older Adults and Their Caregivers: Needs and Competencies

“…When historical impacts of marginalization have been discussed in trainings through the personal narratives of LGBT older adult panelists, training participants stated that having LGBT older adults present promoted their understanding by “putting a face on the issues” (Rogers et al, 2013, p. 590). These kinds of educational experiences are useful to translate narrated experiences into competent practice.…”

The inclusion of LGBT+ health issues within undergraduate healthcare education and professional training programmes: A systematic review

“…To highlight particular psychosocial issues faced by older LGBT+ people such as invisibility, social isolation and discrimination, the use of training panels was evaluated among inter-professional health practitioners (n = 605). A significant proportion of participants (94%) found the training beneficial to their own practice such as increasing knowledge, facilitating self-reflection and promoting a deeper understanding and acceptance of pertinent issues faced by people who identify as LGBT (Rogers et al, 2013). Another positive example of innovative approaches to teaching and learning was a student-led session by medical students delivered to first-year student colleagues.…”

“…A recurring theme emerging from this review is the need for formal evaluation and research of the integration of LGBT+ needs within the health curriculum (Corliss et al, 2007;Kelley et al, 2008;Gendron et al, 2013;Rogers et al, 2013;Carabez et al, 2015a;Daley and MacDonnell, 2015;White et al, 2015;Bidell, 2017;Echezona-Johnson, 2017;Grosz et al, 2017). Undertaking initial base-line evaluations of the existing knowledge, experiences, skills, values attitudes and understanding of the health and wider care and support needs of LGBT+ people is an area that needs to be incorporated into the curriculum at the outset (Carabez et al, 2015a;Bidell, 2017).…”

“…Longitudinal studies and long-term curriculum evaluations should aim to identify changes and development of positive attitudes and values towards LGBT+ people and in knowledge of their specific health and support needs that goes beyond the "traditional" sexual health issues, such as HIV and AIDS (Gendron et al, 2013;Daley and MacDonnell, 2015). Longitudinal studies also offer the opportunity for national and international collaborations that follow up undergraduate students as they move forward into their professional careers to identify sustained changes in attitudes, values and knowledge and skills acquisition (Kelley et al, 2008;Gendron et al, 2013;Rogers et al, 2013;Grosz et al, 2017). Longitudinal studies including the views and experiences of LGBT+ people of health professionals and their healthcare experiences also need to be undertaken (Corliss et al, 2007;Fredriksen-Goldsen et al, 2011).…”

“…A score of zero was given if the paper contained no information, one if there was a moderate amount, and a score of two if the question was fully addressed (Rushbrooke et al, 2014). A total of 13 studies scored 17 and above (Bidell, 2017;Carabez et al, 2015b;Daley and MacDonnell, 2015;Echezona-Johnson, 2017;Grosz et al, 2017;Kelley et al, 2008;Lim et al, 2015;Obedin-Maliver et al, 2011;Parameshwaran et al, 2017;Rogers et al, 2013;Strong and Folse, 2014;Walsh and Hendrickson, 2015;White et al, 2015). A total of 9 studies scored between 14 and 16, indicating gaps and limitations in relation to aims, data collection methods, and ethical concerns (Carabez et al, 2015a;Cheng & Yang 2015;Corliss et al, 2007;Fredriksen-Goldsen et al, 2011;Gendron et al, 2013;Hardacker et al, 2014;Röndahl, 2011;Sequeira et al, 2012;Vance et al, 2017).…”