Sexual minority (non-heterosexual) individuals experience higher rates of physical health problems. Minority stress has been the primary explanatory model to account for this disparity. The purpose of this study was to identify in published research empirically established relationships between minority stress processes and biological outcomes and identify avenues for future research. The PubMed database was queried with search terms relevant to minority stress and a comprehensive list of physical and biological outcomes. To be included in the analysis, studies had to examine the relationship between minority stress and a biological outcome among sexual minority individuals. Those meeting inclusion criteria were coded for key variables including methodology used, positive and null results, participant characteristics, and specific minority stress processes and biological outcomes considered. In total, 26 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies tested relationships between specific minority stress processes including prejudice, expectations of prejudice, concealment of sexual orientation, and internalized stigma and multiple biological outcomes, such as overall physical health, immune response, HIV specific outcomes, cardiovascular outcomes, metabolic outcomes, cancer related outcomes, and hormonal outcomes. Studies included both analyses that detected this relationship (42% of analyses) and analyses that did not detect this relationship (58%). There is substantial evidence to support the Annesa Flentje
Patients with cancer have a high prevalence of distress. Needs assessment can be performed quickly and inexpensively. However, the DT&PL was not cost effective in improving patient mood states. It is important to explore the reasons for this so that oncology units can design better services to support patients.
University of Bristol -Explore Bristol Research
General rightsThis document is made available in accordance with publisher policies. Please cite only the published version using the reference above. Full terms of use are available: http://www.bristol.ac.uk/pure/about/ebr-terms
Experiences of the Distress Thermometer and Problem List 1Patients' and clinicians' experiences of holistic needs assessment using a cancer Distress Thermometer and Problem List: a qualitative study Experiences of the Distress Thermometer and Problem List 2 Abstract Purpose Psychosocial needs assessment is recommended for patients undergoing cancer treatment, but trials of effectiveness of assessment tools provide mixed results. This qualitative study aimed to understand how such tools are experienced by patients and clinicians in order to optimise use in the future.
MethodsQualitative interviews were used in a mixed-methods sequential design following a randomised controlled trial of needs assessment using the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL), and explored patients' and clinicians' evaluations of the needs assessment process.
ResultsBenefits of needs assessment using the DT&PL included the potential to detect hidden distress, allow opportunity for distress to be discussed, and to deliver outcomes to address problems. However, effectiveness and patient willingness to report all forms of distress could be hindered by: clinicians feeling ill-equipped to deal with 'non-physical' distress and patients questioning their appropriateness to do so; time constraints; insufficient support services and referral guidelines; inappropriate timing; and lack of follow-up.
ConclusionsThe benefits of a holistic needs assessment cannot be realised without matching time and frequency of administration to the dynamic nature of distress during cancer, and making changes to the context of delivery -for instance, providing protected time, increasing referral options and clinician training. Significant investment is needed to optimise potential benefits for patients.
(195 words)Keywords: cancer treatment; oncology; distress thermometer and problem list; distress screening and management; patient experiences; qualitative.Conflicts of interest: none.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.