Search

Background: Equitable access to healthcare is a priority of many healthcare systems, aiming to ensure access is driven by need and not minority groups such as those defined by sexual orientation. However, there are healthcare areas where inequity in access across sexual orientation groups is found that are not justified based on need. Mandated LGBTQ+-specific training of the healthcare workforce may help address some barriers of access for these groups. The study aims to understand the potential economic implications for mandated LGBTQ+-specific healthcare training on the healthcare system in England, UK to inform commissioning of training provision. Methods: Cervical cancer screening was used as an exemplar case where there appears to be inequity in access for different sexual orientation groups. A decision model was developed and analysed that considered the impacts of greater uptake of screening for lesbian and bisexual women due to LGBTQ+ training. Costs took the perspective of the healthcare system and outcomes modelled were cancer cases averted in a timeframe of 5 years. Results: Based on cervical cancer screening alone, where training costs are fully attributed to this service, training would likely result in fewer cancer cases detected in the lesbian and bisexual populations, though this comes at a modest increase in healthcare sector costs, with this increase largely reflecting a greater volume of screens. Training costs do not appear to be a major component of the cost implications. Conclusions: In resource-constrained systems with increasing pressures for efficiency savings, the opportunity cost of delivering training is a realistic component of the commissioning decision. The findings in this paper provide a signal that mandated LGBTQ+ training in healthcare could lead to potentially greater outcomes and in breaking down barriers of access and could also enable the healthcare system to provide more equitable access to healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The UK Parliamentary Enquiry and USA Institute of Medicine state that lesbians may be at a higher risk of breast cancer but there is insufficient information. Lesbians and bisexual (LB) women have behavioural risk-factors at higher rates compared to heterosexuals such as increased alcohol intake and higher stress levels. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. This systematic review investigated all evidence on whether there is, or likely to be, higher rates of breast cancer in LB women. Methods Cochrane library (CDSR, CENTRAL, HTA, DARE, NHSEED), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CAB abstracts, Web of Science (SCI, SSCI), SIGLE and Social Care Online databases were searched to October 2013. Unpublished research and specific lesbian, gay and bisexual websites were checked, as were citation lists of relevant papers. Included were studies in LB populations reporting breast cancer incidence or prevalence rates, risk model results or risk-factor estimates. Inclusions, data-extraction and quality assessment were by two reviewers with disagreements resolved by discussion. Results Searchers found 198 references. No incidence rates were found. Nine studies gave prevalence estimates - two showed higher, four showed no differences, one showed mixed results depending on definitions, one had no comparison group and one gave no sample size. All studies were small with poor methodological and/or reporting quality. One incidence modelling study suggested a higher rate. Four risk modelling studies were found, one Rosner-Colditz and three Gail models. Three suggested higher and one lower rate in LB compared to heterosexual women. Six risk-factor estimates suggested higher risk and one no difference between LB and heterosexual women. Conclusions The only realistic way to establish rates in LB women would be to collect sexual orientation within routine statistics, including cancer registry data, or from large cohort studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Lesbian and bisexual women may have different levels of sex hormones compared to heterosexual women. We systematically reviewed comparative studies measuring any sex hormones. A protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO—CRD42017072436) and searches conducted in six databases. Any relevant empirical studies published within the last 50 years reporting any circulating sex hormones in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women were included, with no language or setting restrictions. Inclusions, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. Random-effects meta-analyses of hormone levels, using standardized-mean-differences (SMD) were conducted where five or more studies reported results. From 1236 citations, 24 full papers were examined and 14 studies of mixed designs included, 12 in women without known ovarian problems. Hormones were measured in plasma (n = 9), saliva (n = 4), and urine (n = 2) and included androstenedione, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, pregnanediol, progesterone, testosterone, and several other hormones. Most studies were small, biased, and had considerable heterogeneity. Few found statistically significant differences between groups. All-sample meta-analysis showed increased testosterone in sexual minority women compared to heterosexual women (n = 9; SMD = 0.90; 95% Confidence interval (CI) 0.22, 1.57, I2 = 84%). This was the only difference found. We conclude that the small amount of heterogeneous research, from 50 years to date, suggests little discernable difference in sex hormone levels between lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women excepting possibly higher testosterone. A large-scale primary study would be required before placing any certainty in the findings or their implications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]