The development and process evaluation of PEER : a camp-based programme for adolescents impacted by cancer

Adolescents impacted by their own or a relative’s cancer diagnosis experience significant psychosocial needs. Residential programmes provide opportunities to address these, yet limited evaluation research and unclear reporting of therapeutic and theoretical underpinnings complicate efforts to understand programme effects. This paper reports the development and process evaluation of PEER, a four-day programme with psychosocial (acceptance and commitment therapy, self-compassion) and recreational components for adolescents impacted by their own or a parent/sibling’s cancer. Staff (N = 51) and adolescents (N = 148, 12–17 years) who attended a PEER programme participated in this evaluation. The evaluation of fidelity included measures of facilitators’ confidence to deliver content, adherence to the programme manual, quality of programme delivery, participants’ engagement, and overall satisfaction. The process evaluation included assessment of quality of life, distress, and process variables (psychological flexibility, mindfulness, self-compassion) at pre-programme, post-programme, and two-month follow-up, as well as qualitative feedback from participants and facilitators. Moderation analyses identified predictors of clinically significant improvement in psychosocial outcomes. The programme was delivered with good fidelity, and participants reported high satisfaction and engagement. Approximately 15–20% of participants experienced clinically-meaningful improvements in distress and quality of life; those who reported higher distress and lower baseline psychological flexibility, mindfulness and self-kindness experienced greater improvements. Qualitative feedback additionally evidenced the value of peer connection and support. The evaluation evidences PEER’s feasibility, acceptability and value for adolescents impacted by cancer, particularly those experiencing greater distress. Its success indicates the potential of the therapeutic approaches used, and for community organisations to develop interventions complementing services offered by healthcare systems

'You are at their mercy' : disclosure and trust in LGBTQI+ cancer care

Background Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) populations represent an ‘ignored epidemic’ and a ‘growing, medically underserved population’ in cancer care, with preliminary evidence that these communities experience disproportionate cancer burdens and unique psychosocial challenges (e.g. lower satisfaction with care, greater cancer-related distress). Methods The Out with Cancer study is the first international study to explore the experiences of LGBTQI+ people diagnosed with cancer, using a mixed-methods approach (survey, semi-structured and photo-elicitation interviews). This presentation focuses on disclosure and trust in cancer care, from the perspective of LGBTQI+ people with cancer and healthcare professionals. Results LGBTQI+ participants (to date survey n=342; interviews n=105; data collection is ongoing) often reported careful control around disclosure of their sexual and gender identities or intersex variations in cancer care, in part, due to embarrassment, discomfort, and fear of negative reactions. Previous negative healthcare experiences contributed to distrust in cancer care, reluctance to disclose LGBTQI+ status and fears of inequitable treatment. Some participants reported explicit discriminations in cancer care, however, micro-aggressions (e.g. cis-heteronormative assumptions) and systemic absences of services and information tailored to the needs of LGBTQI+ people with cancer were more commonly reported. Healthcare professionals reported lacking confidence working with LGBTQI+ cancer patients, attributed to insufficient knowledge of the needs of these patients, uncertainty of correct terminology, and feeling embarrassed and uncomfortable discussing topics such as sexual needs. Furthermore, healthcare professionals reported lacking information and resources to guide the provision of quality clinical care and decision making with LGBTQI+ patients (e.g. such as the impact of hormone therapies on cancer treatment). Conclusions These findings highlight the need to develop resources for LGBTQI+ people with cancer and healthcare professionals, which facilitate access to information and care that is culturally informed and relevant to the needs of LGBTQI+ communities

LGBTQI cancer patients' quality of life and distress : a comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

Background: There is growing acknowledgement of the psycho-social vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer. The majority of research to date has focused on cisgender adults with breast or prostate cancer. Study Aim: This study examined psycho-social factors associated with distress and quality of life for LGBTQI cancer patients and survivors, across a range of sexualities and gender identities, intersex status, tumor types, ages and urban/ rural/remote location using an intersectional theoretical framework. Method: 430 LGBTQI people with cancer completed an online survey, measuring distress, quality of life (QOL), and a range of psycho-social variables. Participants included 216 (50.2%) cisgender women, 145 (33.7%) cisgender men, and 63 (14.7%) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Thirty-one (7.2%) participants reported intersex variation and 90 (20%) were adolescents or young adults (AYA), aged 15-39. The majority lived in urban areas (54.4%) and identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (73.7%), with 10.9% identifying as bisexual, and 10.5% as queer, including reproductive (32.4%) and non-reproductive (67.6%) cancers. Results: Forty-one percent of participants reported high or very high distress levels, 3-6 times higher than previous non-LGBTQI cancer studies. Higher rates of distress and lower QOL were identified in TGD compared to cisgender people, AYAs compared to older people, those who identify as bisexual or queer, compared to those who identify as lesbian, gay or homosexual, and those who live in rural or regional areas, compared to urban areas. Elevated distress and lower QOL was associated with greater minority stress (discrimination in life and in cancer care, discomfort being LGBTQI, lower outness) and lower social support, in these subgroups. There were no differences between reproductive and non-reproductive cancers. For the whole sample, distress and poor QOL were associated with physical and sexual concerns, the impact of cancer on gender and LGBTQI identities, minority stress, and lack of social support. Conclusion: LGBTQI people with cancer are at high risk of distress and impaired QOL. Research and oncology healthcare practice needs to recognize the diversity of LGBTQI communities, and the ways in which minority stress and lack of social support may affect wellbeing

"Surviving discrimination by pulling together" : LGBTQI cancer patient and carer experiences of minority stress and social support

Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer and their carers report poorer psychological outcomes than the general non-LGBTQI cancer population. There is growing acknowledgement that these health inequities can be explained by minority stress, which can be buffered by social support. Study Aim: To examine subjective experiences of minority stress and social support for LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers, drawing on qualitative findings from the Out with Cancer study. Method: An online survey including open ended items was completed by 430 LGBTQI cancer patients and 132 partners and other carers, representing a range of tumor types, sexual and gender identities, age and intersex status. A sub-sample of 104 patients and 31 carers completed an interview, with a follow-up photovoice activity and second interview completed by 45 patients and 10 carers. Data was thematically analysed using an intersectional theoretical framework. Results: Historical and present-day experiences of discrimination, violence, family rejection and exclusion created a legacy of distress and fear. This impacted on trust of healthcare professionals and contributed to distress and unmet needs in cancer survivorship and care. Social support, often provided by partners and other chosen family, including intimate partners and other LGBTQI people, buffered the negative impacts of minority stress, helping LGBTQI patients deal with cancer. However, some participants lacked support due to not having a partner, rejection from family of origin and lack of support within LGBTQI communities, increasing vulnerability to poor psychological wellbeing. Despite the chronic, cumulative impacts of minority stress, LGBTQI patients and carers were not passive recipients of discriminatory and exclusion in cancer care, demonstrating agency and resistance through collective action and advocacy. Conclusion: LGBTQI people have unique socio-political histories and present-day psycho-social experiences that contribute to distress during cancer. Social support serves to buffer and ameliorate this distress. There is a need for cancer healthcare professionals and support services to be aware of and responsive to these potential vulnerabilities, including the intersectional differences in experiences of minority stress and social support. There is also a need for recognition and facilitation of social support among LGBTQI people with cancer and their carers

Attitudes, knowledge and practice behaviours of oncology health care professionals towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) patients and their carers : a mixed-methods study

Objective: There is growing recognition that health care professionals (HCPs) and policy makers are insufficiently equipped to provide culturally competent care to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and intersex (LGBTQI) cancer patients and their families. We examined HCP attitudes, knowledge, and practices regarding LGBTQI cancer care using a mixed-methods research design. Method: Surveys were completed by 357 oncology HCPs in nursing (40%), medical (24%), allied health (19%), and clinical leadership roles (11%); 48 of the surveyed HCPs were interviewed. Results: Most HCPs reported being comfortable treating LGBTQI patients, but reported low levels of confidence and knowledge and systemic barriers to LGBTQI cancer care. Most wanted more education and training, particularly on trans and gender-diverse people (TGD) and those born with intersex variations. Conclusion: Education of HCPs and health system changes are required to overcome barriers to the provision of culturally competent cancer care for LGBTQI patients. Practice implications: These findings reinforce the need for inclusion of LGBTQI content in HCP education and professional training curricula, and institutional support for LGBTQI-inclusive practice behaviours. This includes administrative and visual cues to signal safety of LGBTQI patients within cancer care, facilitating inclusive environments, and the provision of tailored patient-centred care

LGBTQI inclusive cancer care : a discourse analytic study of health care professional, patient and carer perspectives

Background: Awareness 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 Aim: This 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. Method: 357 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. Results: Three 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. Conclusion: Derogatory 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

Almost invisible : a review of inclusion of LGBTQI people with cancer in online patient information resources

Objective: This review assessed the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people in online cancer information. Methods: The websites of Australian cancer organizations were reviewed to identify if they included LGBTQI people and the extent and nature of this inclusion. Websites that did not include LGBTQI people were then reviewed to identify if information was implicitly LGBTQI inclusive. International LGBTQI cancer information resources were reviewed to identify key content. Results: Of sixty-one Australian cancer organization websites reviewed, eight (13%) mentioned LGBTQI people, including 13 information resources targeted to LGBTQI people and 19 general cancer information resources that mentioned LGBTQI people. For Australian cancer websites that did not mention LGBTQI people, 88% used gender neutral language to refer to partners, 69% included a range of sexual behaviours, 13% used gender neutral language when referring to hormones or reproductive anatomy but none acknowledged diverse relationship types. Internationally, 38 LGBTQI-specific cancer information resources were identified. Conclusions: Cancer patient information resources need to be LGBTQI inclusive. LGBTQI-targeted resources are required to address this population's unique needs and improve cultural safety and cancer outcomes. Practice implications: Recommendations are provided for LGBTQI inclusive cancer patient information resources

Social norms in online communities : formation, evolution and relation to cyber-aggression

Aggression manifests in many forms online (e.g. cyberbullying, flaming, doxxing, hate speech), yet studies of online aggression typically overlook variability between forms, motivations and communities. Through a series of four studies, my doctoral research explores how social norms develop and evolve in online communities, and how these may give rise to cyber-aggression

Communal quirks and circlejerks : a taxonomy of processes contributing to insularity in online communities

Online communication offers the potential for bridging connections, exposing users to new views and experiences by fostering socially heterogenous communities. However, in the absence of deliberate attempts to promote diversity, communities may tend towards insularity: a state where members and content are similar or homogenous, and where deviation from these norms is discouraged. This paper presents a taxonomy of processes contributing to insularity, synthesizing findings from a broader longitudinal interview study on engagement with online communities over time with previous literature. Using thematic analysis, sixteen processes were identified which were associated with four broad stages: formation (selective connections, network homophily, shared interests, audience segmentation); propagation (circlejerking, upholding community standards, avoiding conflict, tailoring content); reaction (individual avoidance, collective reaction, mocking deviance, derogating outsiders); and perpetuation (modelling, prior feedback, echo chambers, gatekeeping). These findings highlight the need to consider more diverse mechanisms by which communities become insular, and the role that platform features play in facilitating these processes

Individual and collective moral influences on intervention in cyberbullying

Despite their potential to reduce or remedy the impact of cyberbullying, most bystanders do not intervene in witnessed incidents. Social cognitive theory suggests this response is due to interactive influences of personal, behavioural and environmental factors, and further shaped by the social and cultural context. However, this has not been empirically tested in cyberbullying bystanders. In this study, 563 grade 7 and 9 students completed a survey to examine the associations between intervention and morality, at the individual and peer-group levels. Results revealed that intervention was significantly associated with gender, grade, previous experiences of cyberbullying, and the interaction between individual and collective moral variables. More frequent intervention was reported by females, grade 7 students, and those with more experience as victims and witnesses of cyberbullying. Finally, collective moral disengagement moderated the effects of individual morality. In disengaged classes, higher moral standards were associated with more frequent intervention; furthermore, in extremely morally disengaged classes, higher moral disengagement was associated with more frequent intervention. These results suggest that consistent with social cognitive theory, individuals' perceptions of social norms moderate the influence of individual morality on intervention