Cross‐sectional study of psychosocial well‐being among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual gynecologic cancer survivors

Schefter, Alexandra; Thomaier, Lauren; Jewett, Patricia; Brown, Katherine; Stenzel, Ashley E.; Blaes, Anne; Teoh, Deanna

doi:10.1002/cnr2.1461

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, a study of sexual minority breast cancer survivors ( 43 ) recorded clinically relevant depression and anxiety in 31% and 25% of participants respectively. A study of LGB people with gynecological cancer ( 17 ) reported depression and anxiety in 32% at 25% of participants respectively; and clinical levels of distress were reported by 13.7% of participants in a study of gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer ( 9 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cisgender breast cancer survivors who identify as lesbian, bisexual or queer (LBQ), report higher levels of distress and lower quality of life than heterosexual women ( 1 , 15 , 16 ). There is also some evidence that LBQ women with gynecological cancer report significantly higher rates of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder ( 17 ), than their heterosexual counterparts. A national survey including a range of cancer types reported higher rates of poor self-reported health in lesbian women and higher rates of psychological distress in bisexual women, compared to heterosexual women ( 16 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

LGBTQI cancer patients’ quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

Ussher

Allison²,

Perz³

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere is growing acknowledgement of the psycho-social vulnerability of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or intersex (LGBTQI) people with cancer. The majority of research to date has focused on cisgender adults with breast or prostate cancer.Study AimThis study examined psycho-social factors associated with distress and quality of life for LGBTQI cancer patients and survivors, across a range of sexualities and gender identities, intersex status, tumor types, ages and urban/rural/remote location using an intersectional theoretical framework.Method430 LGBTQI people with cancer completed an online survey, measuring distress, quality of life (QOL), and a range of psycho-social variables. Participants included 216 (50.2%) cisgender women, 145 (33.7%) cisgender men, and 63 (14.7%) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) people. Thirty-one (7.2%) participants reported intersex variation and 90 (20%) were adolescents or young adults (AYA), aged 15-39. The majority lived in urban areas (54.4%) and identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual (73.7%), with 10.9% identifying as bisexual, and 10.5% as queer, including reproductive (32.4%) and non-reproductive (67.6%) cancers.ResultsForty-one percent of participants reported high or very high distress levels, 3-6 times higher than previous non-LGBTQI cancer studies. Higher rates of distress and lower QOL were identified in TGD compared to cisgender people, AYAs compared to older people, those who identify as bisexual or queer, compared to those who identify as lesbian, gay or homosexual, and those who live in rural or regional areas, compared to urban areas. Elevated distress and lower QOL was associated with greater minority stress (discrimination in life and in cancer care, discomfort being LGBTQI, lower outness) and lower social support, in these subgroups. There were no differences between reproductive and non-reproductive cancers. For the whole sample, distress and poor QOL were associated with physical and sexual concerns, the impact of cancer on gender and LGBTQI identities, minority stress, and lack of social support.ConclusionLGBTQI people with cancer are at high risk of distress and impaired QOL. Research and oncology healthcare practice needs to recognize the diversity of LGBTQI communities, and the ways in which minority stress and lack of social support may affect wellbeing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

LGBTQI cancer patients’ quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

Ussher

Allison²,

Perz³

et al. 2022

Front. Oncol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, as with prior caregiving research, SGM participants were more likely to report previous mental health diagnoses and higher life course stress scores than non‐SGM participants 35 . The fact that SGM participants experienced PTG equally could therefore suggest resilience and warrants future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…In this study, as with prior caregiving research, SGM participants were more likely to report previous mental health diagnoses and higher life course stress scores than non-SGM participants. 35 The fact that SGM participants experienced PTG equally could therefore suggest resilience and warrants future research. While small in magnitude, each dyad member's higher life course stress predicted their lower wellbeing, patients' higher life course stress predicted partners' lower wellbeing, but partners' life course stress did not predict patients' lower wellbeing.…”

Section: Hypothesis 3 Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Posttraumatic growth and life course stress predict dyadic wellbeing among sexual and gender minority (SGM) and non‐SGM couples facing cancer

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study examined: (1) Differences among sexual and gender minority (SGM) and non‐SGM couples' life course stress, posttraumatic growth (PTG), individual, and dyadic wellbeing while facing cancer, (2) The predictive ability of PTG and life course stress on wellbeing for each dyad member, and (3) The predictive ability of dyad‐level PTG and dyad‐level life course stress on dyadic wellbeing. Methods Thirty SGM and 30 non‐SGM dyads (N = 60) completed measures assessing demographics, life course stress, PTG, individual, and dyadic wellbeing. Regression and multilevel models tested predictive hypotheses. Results Participants were 56.3 years old on average (SD = 13.6) and were together for 24.2 (SD = 14.9) years. SGM participants reported greater life course stress and higher scores on the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scales (DASS‐21) than non‐SGM participants. A dyad members' higher PTG predicted their partners' higher DASS‐21 score, dyad members' higher life course stress predicted their own higher DASS‐21 score, and patients' higher life course stress predicted their partners' higher DASS‐21 score. Greater dyadic PTG predicted greater dyadic wellbeing. Conclusions SGM and non‐SGM couples experience PTG equally despite SGM couples' greater life course stress and higher DASS‐21 scores. Future research is needed to explore how PTG may affect individuals and couples differently.

show abstract

“…Although there are support groups for men with prostate cancer, gay and bisexual men did not always feel included in these groups leaving their needs unmet [13]. Although there are support groups for SGD cancer patients, a study found that only 21% of patients knew about these groups, but 81% of those that knew about these resources used them [14].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship

Schulz-Quach

Kennedy

Lyver

2023

Current Opinion in Supportive &Amp; Palliative Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the review Sexual and gender diverse (SGD) cancer patients possess unique identities and needs that must be considered during their cancer care. This narrative review explores the current literature on sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship, in addition to providing recommendations encouraged by the current literature. Recent findings We performed a literature search for articles published in English between January 2021 and June 2022 in Medline ALL and Embase. Fifty-two studies were included in this review. The many identities encapsulated in 2SLGBTQIA+ (2 Spirited, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersexual, Asexual, Agender, Aromantic and all gender identities and sexual orientations that are not listed) communities each have their own unique backgrounds, needs and disparities in cancer care and survivorship. However, we also identified specific protective factors in the cancer experience of SGD patients such as reports of higher resiliency and stronger support networks. Much of the recent research features recommendations on improving cancer care by creating inclusive patient questionnaires, improving in-person and online resources, and educating healthcare providers and patient-facing staff on inclusive care. Summary SGD patients have their own specific challenges during and following their cancer care. As the research continues to grow, we gain a better understanding of the needs of these patients and future steps to take to improve SGD patients’ cancer experience.

show abstract

Cross‐sectional study of psychosocial well‐being among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and heterosexual gynecologic cancer survivors

Cited by 13 publications

References 56 publications

LGBTQI cancer patients’ quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

LGBTQI cancer patients’ quality of life and distress: A comparison by gender, sexuality, age, cancer type and geographical remoteness

Posttraumatic growth and life course stress predict dyadic wellbeing among sexual and gender minority (SGM) and non‐SGM couples facing cancer

Sexual and gender diversity in cancer care and survivorship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About