No abstract

Aims and objectives To discuss the risks that heteronormative assumptions play in prostate cancer care and how these may be addressed. Background There is international evidence to support the case that LGBT patients with cancer are less likely to report poor health or self‐disclose sexual orientation. Gender‐specific cancers, such as prostate cancer, require particular interventions in terms of supportive care. These may include advice about side‐effect management (such as incontinence or erectile dysfunction), treatment choices and social and emotional issues. In this paper, we discuss and analyse the heteronormative assumptions and culture that exist around this cancer. We argue that this situation may act as a barrier to effective supportive care for all Lesbian women, Gay, Transgender and Bisexual patients, in this case men who have sex with men.[Correction added on 21 September 2017, after first online publication: The first sentence of the Background section has been revised for clarity in this current version.] Design Theoretical exploration of heteronormativity considered against the clinical context of prostate cancer. Methods Identification and inclusion of relevant international evidence combined with clinical discussion. Results This paper posits a number of questions around heteronormativity in relation to prostate cancer information provision, supportive care and male sexuality. While assumptions regarding sexual orientation should be avoided in clinical encounters, this may be difficult when heteronormative assumptions dominate. Existing research supports the assertion that patient experience, including the needs of LGBT patients, should be central to service developments. Conclusion Assumptions about sexual orientation should be avoided and recorded accurately and sensitively, and relational models of care should be promoted at the start of cancer treatment in an appropriate manner. These may assist in reducing the risks of embarrassment or offence to nonheterosexual patients, or to professionals who may adopt heteronormative assumptions. Relevance to clinical practice Having an awareness of the risks of making heteronormative assumptions in clinical practice will be useful for all health professionals engaged in prostate cancer care. This awareness can prevent embarrassment or upset for patients and ensure a more equitable provision of service, including men with prostate cancer who do not identify as heterosexual.

No abstract

No abstract

Using Card Games to study men's social talk about prostate cancer ABSRACT Aim: To report the Card Games approach used to study men's talk about their risk for prostate cancer, and as a method of data collection to analyse patterns of talk amongst distinct cultural groups.Design: A constructivist grounded theory approach using focus groups to analyse men's social talk about prostate cancer Methods: Data were collected using three focus groups with African-Caribbean, Somali and White British men. The focus groups were conducted in a location of the men's choice with a focus group facilitator and observer. Four Card Games were given to the men to encourage social talk.Results: The African-Caribbean men had the most democratic talk with the use of agreement and disagreement and the Somali men were the most inclusive of others and used the most humour. The White British men were competitive in their talk and the least inclusive of each other's views. Conclusion:The Card Games revealed differences in the pattern of talk, which provided insight into how men may use social talk to develop their understanding of prostate cancer risk. This is useful for healthcare professionals as it provides a grounding for structuring discussions with men about prostate cancer, whilst having an understanding of how riskrelated knowledge may be reconstructed in social talk and interactions.Impact: The methodology discussed in this paper addressed the use of focus group to analyse talk of men from culturally diverse groups. The use of Card Games allowed the talk between the men to take centre stage, and this allowed differences in the social talk of the men to become apparent. The use of this methodology could have an impact on approaches to researching cultural understandings of cancer risk, which may provide evidence on effective delivery of sociocultural relevant health education relating to cancer screening.