Current Best Practices for Sexual and Gender Minorities in Hospice and Palliative Care Settings.

Although several publications document the health care disparities experienced by sexual and gender minorities (SGMs), including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals,1e4 less is known about the experiences and outcomes for SGM families and individuals in hospice and palliative care (HPC) settings. This article provides a brief overview of issues pertaining to SGMs in HPC settings, highlighting gaps in knowledge and research. Current and best practices for SGM individuals and their families in HPC settings are described, as are recommendations for improving the quality of such care

Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection in Oncology Practice: Findings of an ASCO Survey

PURPOSE: Lack of collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data in oncology practices limits assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) cancer patients\u27 experiences and restricts opportunities to improve health outcomes of SGM patients. Despite national calls for routine SOGI data collection, individual-level and institutional barriers hinder progress. This study aimed to identify these barriers in oncology. METHODS: An online survey of ASCO members and others assessed SOGI data collection in oncology practices, institutional characteristics related to SOGI data collection, respondents\u27 attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and respondent demographics. Logistic regression calculated adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs for factors associated with sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI) data collection. RESULTS: Less than half of 257 respondents reported institutional SO and GI data collection (40% and 46%, respectively), whereas over a third reported no institutional data collection (34% and 32%, respectively) and the remainder were unsure (21% and 17%, respectively). Most respondents felt that knowing both SO and GI was important for quality care (77% and 85%, respectively). Collection of SO and GI was significantly associated in separate models with leadership support (ORs = 8.01 and 6.02, respectively), having resources for SOGI data collection (ORs = 10.6 and 18.7, respectively), and respondents\u27 belief that knowing patient SO and GI is important (ORs = 4.28 and 2.76, respectively). Themes from qualitative comments mirrored the key factors identified in our quantitative analysis. CONCLUSION: Three self-reinforcing factors emerged as critical drivers for collecting SOGI data: leadership support, dedicated resources, and individual respondents\u27 attitudes. Policy mandates, implementation science, and clinical reimbursement are strategies to advance meaningful data collection and use in clinical practice

State of Cancer Care in America: Achieving Cancer Health Equity Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities

In 2017, ASCO issued the position statement, Strategies for Reducing Cancer Health Disparities Among Sexual and Gender Minority Populations, outlining five areas of recommendations to address the needs of both sexual and gender minority (SGM, eg, LGBTQ+) populations affected by cancer and members of the oncology workforce who identify as SGM: (1) patient education and support; (2) workforce development and diversity; (3) quality improvement strategies; (4) policy solutions; and (5) research strategies. In 2019, ASCO convened the SGM Task Force to help actualize the recommendations of the 2017 position statement. The percentage of the US population who publicly identify as SGM has increased dramatically over the past few years. Although increased national interest in SGM health equity has accompanied a general interest in research, policy change, and education around diversity, equity, and inclusion, resulting from public concern over discrimination in health care against Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, this has been accompanied by a surge in discriminatory legislation directly impacting the SGM community. Although much progress has been made in advancing SGM cancer health equity since 2017, more progress is needed to reduce disparities and advance equity. The five focus areas outlined in the 2017 ASCO position statement remain relevant, as we must continue to promote and advance equity in quality improvement, workforce development, patient care, research, and SGM-affirming policies. This article reports on the progress toward reducing SGM cancer disparities and achieving equity across these five areas and identifies future directions for the work that still remains

Development of a mentor training curriculum to support LGBTQIA+ health professionals

While mentors can learn general strategies for effective mentoring, existing mentorship curricula do not comprehensively address how to support marginalized mentees, including LGBTQIA+ mentees. After identifying best mentoring practices and existing evidence-based curricula, we adapted these to create the Harvard Sexual and Gender Minority Health Mentoring Program. The primary goal was to address the needs of underrepresented health professionals in two overlapping groups: (1) LGBTQIA+ mentees and (2) any mentees focused on LGBTQIA+ health. An inaugural cohort (N = 12) of early-, mid-, and late-career faculty piloted this curriculum in spring 2022 during six 90-minute sessions. We evaluated the program using confidential surveys after each session and at the program’s conclusion as well as with focus groups. Faculty were highly satisfied with the program and reported skill gains and behavioral changes. Our findings suggest this novel curriculum can effectively prepare mentors to support mentees with identities different from their own; the whole curriculum, or parts, could be integrated into other trainings to enhance inclusive mentoring. Our adaptations are also a model for how mentorship curricula can be tailored to a particular focus (i.e., LGBTQIA+ health). Ideally, such mentor trainings can help create more inclusive environments throughout academic medicine

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance: The full effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care disparities, particularly by race and ethnicity, remains unknown.Objectives: To assess whether the race and ethnicity of patients with cancer was associated with disparities in cancer treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, and concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic and to evaluate trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity.Design, Setting, and Participants: This national survey study of US adults with cancer compared treatment delays, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information by race and ethnicity from September 1, 2020, to January 12, 2021. Exposures: The COVID-19 pandemic.Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was delay in cancer treatment by race and ethnicity. Secondary outcomes were duration of delay, adverse social and economic effects, concerns, and trusted sources of COVID-19 information.Results: Of 1639 invited respondents, 1240 participated (75.7% response rate) from 50 US states, the District of Columbia, and 5 US territories (744 female respondents [60.0%]; median age, 60 years [range, 24-92 years]; 266 African American or Black [hereafter referred to as Black] respondents [21.5%]; 186 Asian respondents [15.0%]; 232 Hispanic or Latinx [hereafter referred to as Latinx] respondents [18.7%]; 29 American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or multiple races [hereafter referred to as other] respondents [2.3%]; and 527 White respondents [42.5%]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (odds ratio [OR], 6.13 [95% CI, 3.50-10.74]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 2.77 [95% CI, 1.49-5.14]) had greater odds of involuntary treatment delays, and Black respondents had greater odds of treatment delays greater than 4 weeks (OR, 3.13 [95% CI, 1.11-8.81]). Compared with White respondents, Black respondents (OR, 4.32 [95% CI, 2.65-7.04]) and Latinx respondents (OR, 6.13 [95% CI, 3.57-10.53]) had greater odds of food insecurity and concerns regarding food security (Black respondents: OR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.34-3.04]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.94 [95% CI, [1.86-4.66]), financial stability (Black respondents: OR, 3.56 [95% CI, 1.79-7.08]; Latinx respondents: OR, 4.29 [95% CI, 1.98-9.29]), and affordability of cancer treatment (Black respondents: OR, 4.27 [95% CI, 2.20-8.28]; Latinx respondents: OR, 2.81 [95% CI, 1.48-5.36]). Trusted sources of COVID-19 information varied significantly by race and ethnicity.Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey of US adults with cancer, the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with treatment delay disparities and adverse social and economic effects among Black and Latinx adults. Partnering with trusted sources may be an opportunity to overcome such disparities.</p