Discrimination in the medical setting among LGBTQ+ adults and associations with cancer screening.

Purpose: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender diverse (LGBTQ+) individuals experience disparities in cancer screening. We examined whether experience of LGBTQ+ -related discrimination in medical settings was associated with cancer screening disparities.
Methods: Participants were recruited via social media for a cross-sectional survey study. Those who self-reported as LGBTQ+ , being 40+ years of age, and residing in the US were eligible. Participants reported their clinical and demographic characteristics, cancer screening history, and experiences of discrimination in a medical setting. We examined the odds (OR) of ever undergoing cancer screening by experienced discrimination, stratified by sex assigned at birth.
Results: Participants (n = 310) were on average 54.4 ± 9.0 years old and primarily White (92.9%). Most identified as lesbian (38.1%) or gay (40.0%) while 17.1% were transgender or gender diverse. Nearly half (45.5%) reported experiencing LGBTQ+ -related discrimination in the medical setting. Participants assigned female at birth with discriminatory experiences had significantly lower odds of ever undergoing colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy compared to those without discriminatory experiences (OR: 0.37; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.15-0.90). No significant differences in colonoscopy/sigmoidoscopy uptake were observed in those assigned male at birth by discriminatory experiences (OR: 2.02; 95% CI 0.59-6.91). Pap tests, mammogram, and stool colorectal cancer screening did not differ by discriminatory experience.
Conclusion: Discrimination in medical settings was commonly reported by LGBTQ+ individuals in this study. When treating LGBTQ+ patients, clinicians should ask about prior experiences and continue to promote cancer screening. Future studies should examine discrimination as a key driver of LGBTQ+ disparities in cancer screening.
Competing Interests: Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethical approval: This study was reviewed and approved by the University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board (STUDY00011648). Consent to participate: All individuals completed informed consent and HIPAA forms prior to study participation. Consent for publication: Authors affirm that research participants provided informed consent for publication of study results.
(© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)