A Crisis of Erasure: Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Populations Navigating Breast Cancer Health Information

In this paper, we use the topic of breast cancer as an example of health crisis erasure in both informational and institutional contexts, particularly within the transgender and gender-nonconforming population. Breast cancer health information conforms and defaults to conventional cultural associations with femininity, as is the case with pregnancy and other “single-sex” conditions (Surkan, 2015). Many health information and research practices normalize sexualities, pathologize non-normative gender (Drescher et al., 2012; Fish, 2008; Müller, 2018), and fail to recognize gender-nonconforming categories (Frohard‐Dourlent et al., 2017). Because breast cancer health information is sexually normalized, an information boundary exists for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly among transgender and gender-nonconforming adults who are at greater risk of discrimination in healthcare settings (Casey et al., 2019). Transgender and gender-nonconforming people experience unique marginalization and risk with respect to breast cancer. We call upon and propose library and information research, education, and practice opportunities inclusive of the health information needs of transgender and gender-nonconforming populations

A Crisis of Erasure: Transgender and Gender-Nonconforming Populations Navigating Breast Cancer Health Information

In this paper, we use the topic of breast cancer as an example of health crisis erasure in both informational and institutional contexts, particularly within the transgender and gender-nonconforming population. Breast cancer health information conforms and defaults to conventional cultural associations with femininity, as is the case with pregnancy and other “single-sex” conditions (Surkan, 2015). Many health information and research practices normalize sexualities, pathologize non-normative gender (Drescher et al., 2012; Fish, 2008; Müller, 2018), and fail to recognize gender-nonconforming categories (Frohard‐Dourlent et al., 2017). Because breast cancer health information is sexually normalized, an information boundary exists for the LGBTQ+ community, particularly among transgender and gender-nonconforming adults who are at greater risk of discrimination in healthcare settings (Casey et al., 2019). Transgender and gender-nonconforming people experience unique marginalization and risk with respect to breast cancer. We call upon and propose library and information research, education, and practice opportunities inclusive of the health information needs of transgender and gender-nonconforming populations

Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer and Genomic Uncertainty: A QuantCrit Mini-Review

African American women are 39-44% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. This stable racial disparity in mortality rates has persisted since the 1980s and is unlikely to improve unless specific factors leading to disparities are discovered. Racial health disparities should be understood in the context of stable racialized social structures that determine differential access to information. The purpose of this study is to consider how recent quantitative studies using HINTS data might benefit from a critical race agenda to capture the nuances of African American women’s information behaviors, genetic testing awareness, and testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene mutations

Building a framework to understand and address vulnerability to reading difficulties among children in schools in the United States

This paper presents a vulnerability framework as a means to contextualize inequities in reading achievement among children who are vulnerable to poor reading outcomes. Models to understand vulnerability have been applied in the social sciences and public health to identify population disparities and design interventions to improve outcomes. Vulnerability is multifaceted and governed by context. Using a vulnerability framework for the science of reading provides an innovative approach for acknowledging multilevel factors contributing to disparities. The ecological considerations of both individual differences in learners and conditions within and outside of schools ensures that scientific advances are realized for learners who are more vulnerable to experiencing reading difficulty in school.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175133/1/cad20473.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/175133/2/cad20473_am.pd

Psychosocial factors impacting barriers and motivators to cancer genetic testing

Abstract Background Only a small proportion of patients who qualify for clinical genetic testing for cancer susceptibility get testing. Many patient‐level barriers contribute to low uptake. In this study, we examined self‐reported patient barriers and motivators for cancer genetic testing. Methods A survey comprised of both new and existing measures related to barriers and motivators to genetic testing was emailed to patients with a diagnosis of cancer at a large academic medical center. Patients who self‐reported receiving a genetic test were included in these analyses (n = 376). Responses about emotions following testing as well as barriers and motivators prior to getting testing were examined. Group differences in barriers and motivators by patient demographic characteristics were examined. Results Being assigned female at birth was associated with increased emotional, insurance, and family concerns as well as increased health benefits compared to patients assigned male at birth. Younger respondents had significantly higher emotional and family concerns compared to older respondents. Recently diagnosed respondents expressed fewer concerns about insurance implications and emotional concerns. Those with a BRCA‐related cancer had higher scores on social and interpersonal concerns scale than those with other cancers. Participants with higher depression scores indicated increased emotional, social and interpersonal, and family concerns. Conclusions Self‐reported depression emerged as the most consistent factor influencing report of barriers to genetic testing. By incorporating mental health resources into clinical practice, oncologists may better identify those patients who might need more assistance following through with a referral for genetic testing and the response afterwards