This article explores the role of reflexivity, emotion work and insider/outsider researcher status in one queer researcher’s experiences of conducting fieldwork. Through exploring field diaries and interview extracts, this article highlights the impact of being/researching LGBT+ identities as a queer researcher. Five experiences are discussed: (i) the euphoria of connection, (ii) relationships with participants, (iii) retraumatisation through listening, (iv) finding oneself on the outside and (v) the researcher’s shifting identity. The article concludes with suggestions on the impact studying one’s own identity can have on the researcher, and suggestions for engaging in similar research practices.

This scoping review of UK evidence aimed to describe what is known about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans (LGBT+) health inequalities in relation to cancer, mental health, and palliative care to inform research, policy and public health interventions. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified studies from database searches, citation tracking, and expert consultation. The in/exclusion criteria was based on the PICOS framework. The data were charted and then summarised to map the theoretical approaches and the main types of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. In total, 279 articles were screened and 83 were included in the final review. We found that there is limited UK research examining LGBT+ health inequality in cancer, mental health and palliative care. We would argue that this thin evidence base is partly due to national policy discussions of LGBT+ health inequality that are framed within a depoliticised ‘it’s getting better’ narrative, and an unwillingness to adequately acknowledge the unjust social and economic relations that produce LGBT+ health inequality. In addition, LGBT+ health inequality is depoliticised by existing public health explanatory theories, models and frameworks that exclude sexual orientation and gender diversity as dimensions of power that interlock with those of socio-economic, race and ethnicity. This is a barrier to developing public health interventions that can successfully tackle LGBT+ health inequality

Plurisexuals are often interpreted as half gay/half straight due to the prevailing belief that multigendered attractions are temporary, or illusory. This interpretation is also strongly connected to the gender binary, gender norms, and cisnormativity. Based on these social forces, this article explores how plurisexuals represent themselves in a culture that does not see their identities as viable, often through the use of gender norms. Informed by queer theory, this research is based on semi-structured interviews (n = 30) and photo diaries (n = 9). Findings demonstrate that plurisexuals wish to present visually, but are not certain of how to do so. Plurisexuals see gender and sexuality as connected, and reference transforming outfits through feminization or masculinization. Finally, plurisexuals reference the homophobic, monosexist, transphobic social world by describing how they communicate gender and sexual identities only in certain spaces, or for certain audiences.

No abstract

BackgroundThe ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients’ experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group.MethodsQualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach.ResultsThe findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes.ConclusionsThe integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005. Registered on 27 April 2011.