Search

BackgroundAsian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM) face unique challenges in mental health and accessing high-quality health care.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) between AAPI SGM and providers, especially surrounding mental health.Research designInterviews, focus groups, and surveys.SubjectsAAPI SGM interviewees in Chicago (n=20) and San Francisco (n=20). Two focus groups (n=10) in San Francisco.MeasuresParticipants were asked open-ended questions about their health care experiences and how their identities impacted these encounters. Follow-up probes explored SDM and mental health. Participants were also surveyed about attitudes towards SGM disclosure and preferences about providers. Transcripts were analyzed for themes and a conceptual model was developed.ResultsOur conceptual model elucidates the patient, provider, and encounter-centered factors that feed into SDM for AAPI SGM. Some participants shared the stigma of SGM identities and mental health in their AAPI families. Their AAPI and SGM identities were intertwined in affecting mental health. Some providers inappropriately controlled the visibility of the patient's identities, ignoring or overemphasizing them. Participants varied on whether they preferred a provider of the same race, and how prominently their AAPI and/or SGM identities affected SDM.ConclusionsProviders should understand identity-specific challenges for AAPI SGM to engage in SDM. Providers should self-educate about AAPI and SGM history and intracommunity heterogeneity before the encounter, create a safe environment conducive to patient disclosure of SGM identity, and ask questions about patient priorities for the visit, pronouns, and mental health.

Within the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) community, people of color (POC) disproportionately experience intimate partner violence (IPV). While shared decision-making (SDM)—a model of patient-provider communication—about IPV could benefit LGBTQ POC, its unique challenges merit consideration. This study identifies key factors affecting SDM between LGBTQ POC and healthcare providers surrounding IPV. LGBTQ POC participants (n = 217) in Chicago and San Francisco completed surveys about demographic information, healthcare utilization, and IPV history. Individual interviews and focus groups were then conducted with a Chicago-based subset of participants (n = 46) who identified as LGBTQ IPV survivors of color. Descriptive analyses were conducted of survey responses while focus group and interview transcripts were analyzed and thematically coded. Although 71% of survey participants experienced IPV, only 35% were asked about IPV in healthcare interactions within the previous year. Focus group and interview participants endorsed encounter-, patient-, and provider-centered factors affecting SDM around IPV. When IPV was discussed, patient-provider trust was essential while concordance of identities could either encourage or discourage IPV disclosure. Patients were hesitant to disclose IPV if they had never discussed their LGBTQ identity with their provider or thought providers would ignore their preferences for addressing IPV. Deterrents to SDM included providers denying the prevalence of IPV among LGBTQ individuals or lacking resources to support LGBTQ IPV survivors of color. This study highlights the identity-driven barriers that LGBTQ POC face in discussing IPV with providers. Utilizing SDM to discuss IPV with LGBTQ POC can better address the diverse health needs of this community. However, its success requires that providers acknowledge the diversity of experiences among this population, promote LGBTQ-inclusive practices, and identify resources welcome to LGBTQ POC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of patient-provider communication. Little is known about the role of SDM in health disparities among Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) sexual and gender minorities (SGM). We illustrate how issues at the intersection of AAPI and SGM identities affect SDM processes and health outcomes. We discuss experiences of AAPI SGM that are affected by AAPI heterogeneity, SGM stigma, multiple minority group identities, and sources of discrimination. Recommendations for clinical practice, research, policy, community development, and education are offered.

Competing Interests: None disclosed.

Background: Recently, there have been calls to improve diversity among the dermatology workforce, with emphasis placed on the resident selection process and trainee pipeline. However, there is limited data on the perspectives of dermatology applicants, especially among UIM trainees, and the support that they need and want to successfully apply in dermatology., Methods: To assess trainee perspectives, we disseminated a survey to medical students, interns (matched into dermatology), and dermatology residents asking how dermatology residency programs can best support trainees through the dermatology application process. We developed a codebook drawing upon grounded theory methodology, and consensus coded all qualitative responses., Results: We received 224 qualitative responses from underrepresented in medicine (UIM) (65, 29.0%) and non-UIM trainees (159, 70.9%). UIM trainees were more likely to mention diversity and inclusion initiatives (46.2% vs 3.8%, P<0.001), transparency in program information (40.0% vs 24.5%, P=0.021), holistic review (30.8% vs 6.3%, P<0.001), UIM student outreach/pipeline programs (23.1% vs 0.6%, P<0.001), and mentorship (21.5% vs 8.2%, P=0.009)., Conclusion: Improving programmatic efforts to address unique challenges UIM trainees face when applying into dermatology is instrumental to mitigating barriers. We highlight opportunities for dermatology residency programs to create a more fair and equitable dermatology application process and support a more diverse pipeline of future dermatologists. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021;20(7):795-797. doi:10.36849/JDD.6043.