ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2025
Discrimination in the medical setting among LGBTQ+ adults and associations with cancer screening.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Preferences of High-Risk HPV-Based Cervical Cancer Screening among Transgender Men and Gender Diverse People Assigned Female at Birth: A Cross-Sectional Study at a Single Academic Center.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2025Article
- Gender and sex interactions are intrinsic components of cancer phenotypes.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLesbian, 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.
methodsParticipants 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.
resultsParticipants (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.
conclusionDiscrimination 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.