A Qualitative Exploration of Uterine Cancer Care for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Queer (LGBTQ+) Patients in the UK: Shifting from Equality to Equity

Objective Patients identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and/or queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) report significant disparities in cancer care and are disproportionally affected by a cancer diagnosis on a number of health-related indicators. This study aimed to explore uterine cancer (UC) care from the perspectives of LGBTQ+ patients and stakeholders, to identify this population’s care needs, which have been underprioritised thus far. Methods and analysis Qualitative interview data were collected from three cohorts of participants: LGBTQ+ UC patients, partners of UC patients and stakeholders who provide advocacy and/or support within the UC care pathway, including healthcare professionals (HCPs). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted and data were analysed using inductive reflexive thematic analysis. Results Fifteen participants (three patients, one partner, eight HCPs and three cancer support charity representatives) were recruited. Data analysis identified themes which represented participants’ reflections on the relevance and opportunities for identity disclosure during the diagnostic pathway; feelings and implications of not fitting into the gynaecological cancer environment and, opportunities and challenges surrounding HCP education, and protocolled sexual and gender identity data collection. Conclusion UC patients who identify as LGBTQ+ have specific care needs and considerations, particularly related to transvaginal procedures and survivorship. Opportunities for disclosure of patients’ LGBTQ+ identity during the UC care pathway are essential for these needs to be recognised. Despite this, there are conflicting agendas between HCPs and stakeholders on the best approach to integrate disclosure processes. The current findings highlight the need for public health agendas and clinical services to address the needs of LGBTQ+ UC patients.</p

Exploring the Perspectives of Underrepresented Voices: Perceptions and experiences of uterine cancer for Black African, Caribbean, Black British, and Mixed-Black Women in the UK to Develop Strategies for Early Symptom Presentation

Objectives The uterine cancer (UC) mortality rate in the UK is significantly higher for women who belong to a Black ethnic group compared to those from other ethnic groups. This study aimed to understand the views and experiences of UC amongst Black ethnic minority women in the UK, with a focus on awareness and presentation of red-flag symptoms. Methods Women of Black African, Caribbean, Black British and Mixed-Black ethnicity were purposefully recruited to participate in focus groups and individual semi-structured interviews. Results Twenty women from different regions in England participated in the study. Reflexive thematic analysis of the data led to the identification of three main themes: 1) Healthcare inequities; 2) Support and sense making with other Black women; and 3) Knowledge dissemination, mobilisation, and empowerment. Perceptions of inequitable healthcare provision and distrust influenced how participants, and their peer networks, approached seeking assistance from healthcare professionals. Concerns were also raised about culturally insensitive information resources, including issues of language, literacy, and representation, all of which served as potential barriers for women within Black ethnic minority groups. Conclusions The deficiency of targeted knowledge mobilisation and specific UC information aimed at Black ethnicity women living in the UK, reportedly contributes to the dissemination of misconceptions and an atmosphere of apprehension around a UC diagnosis. The insights from this study highlight the significance of designing culturally sensitive strategies to promote informed decision-making and empower the dissemination of accurate health knowledge amongst Black women.</p

A qualitative exploration of physical and psychosocial well‐being in the short and long term after treatments for cervical cancer

ObjectiveCervical cancer is predominantly a cancer of younger women, and improvements in oncological outcomes have led to an increase in cervical cancer survivors living with the long-term effects of treatment. Understanding the recovery process after treatment is essential to increase awareness of the short- and long-term needs of survivors. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore the recovery process and return to daily activity of cervical cancers survivors from a biopsychosocial perspective.MethodsParticipants were 21 women treated for cervical cancer between the ages of 18 and 60 years, living in the United Kingdom. Interviews were undertaken face to face and via the telephone using a semi-structured interview schedule.ResultsData analysis revealed themes which represented participants' experience and perceptions of treatment as a paradox; emotional needs after treatment; and a journey of adversarial growth.A key finding from this analysis was the nuanced experiences between treatment modalities, with physical changes perceived to be more disruptive following radical treatments, whilst psychological repercussions were significant regardless of treatment type.ConclusionThis study provides novel insight into the varied recovery experiences of those treated with surgery and/or chemoradiotherapy for cervical cancer, which can be used to improve the survivorship experience.</div

ACCEPTANCE: protocol for a feasibility study of a multicomponent physical activity intervention following treatment for cervical cancer

IntroductionCervical cancer treatment can have life changing sequelae and be associated with poor short-term and long-term quality of life. Physical activity (PA; that is, bodily movement) is known to improve health outcomes and quality of life for cancer survivors, both physically and psychologically. To date, no interventions to increase PA following cervical cancer have been evaluated. This study aims to (1) determine the feasibility of conducting a PA intervention after cervical cancer and (2) to explore the acceptability of the programme and evaluation measures.Methods and analysisThe design is a pre study and post study design. Thirty participants aged between 18 and 60 years from the Midlands region, UK, who have completed primary treatment for cervical cancer at least 6 months previously and do not meet the national PA guidelines will be recruited. Identification of potential participants will take place through the University Hospitals of Leicester National Health Service (NHS) Trust. Participants will receive an intervention focused on increasing PA through the provision of education, action planning, goal setting, problem solving and self-monitoring of PA behaviour, particularly steps per day. Device assessed PA and questionnaires will be completed at baseline, week 6, week 12 and week 24. Feasibility will be assessed in terms of recruitment, retention, attrition, completion of measures and intervention compliance, for which specific feasibility criteria have been established. The process evaluation will explore the experiences and acceptability of the intervention components and evaluation measures.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been granted by the West of Scotland Research Ethics Committee 1 for this study. Results will inform intervention refinement for the design of a definitive pilot trial. These results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications and international conferences while input from a patient and public involvement (PPI) group will inform effective ways to circulate results among the wider community.Trial registration numberISRCTN16349793, Registered 30 September 2020.</div

Risk stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer: the clinicians’ perspective

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres, however there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians’ and clinical specialist nurses’ (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national ‘Personalising endometrial cancer follow-up’ educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians’ views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the Covid-19 pandemic impacted on EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC, however barriers were identified for non-English speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients’ personal needs and preferences.</p

Risk Stratified Follow-Up for Endometrial Cancer: The Clinicians’ Perspective

Risk-stratified follow-up for endometrial cancer (EC) is being introduced in many cancer centres; however, there appears to be diversity in the structure and availability of schemes across the UK. This study aimed to investigate clinicians’ and clinical specialist nurses’ (CNS) experiences of follow-up schemes for EC, including patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU), telephone follow-up (TFU) and clinician-led hospital follow-up (HFU). A mixed-methods study was conducted, consisting of an online questionnaire to CNSs, an audience survey of participants attending a national “Personalising Endometrial Cancer Follow-up” educational meeting, and qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews with clinicians involved in the follow-up of EC. Thematic analysis identified three main themes to describe clinicians’ views: appropriate patient selection; changing from HFU to PIFU schemes; and the future of EC follow-up schemes. Many participants reported that the COVID-19 pandemic impacted EC follow-up by accelerating the transition to PIFU/TFU. Overall, there was increasing support for non-HFU schemes for patients who have completed primary treatment of EC; however, barriers were identified for non-English-speaking patients and those who had communication challenges. Given the good long-term outcome associated with EC, greater focus is needed to develop resources to support patients post-treatment and individualise follow-up according to patients’ personal needs and preferences