Search

Anti-Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and/or Queer (LGBTQ+) education laws are defined as laws that prohibit or limit schools from discussing same-sex relationships, broader sexuality, and gender issues in their sexual education curriculum. This study presents a historical context of anti-LGBTQ+ sex education laws, examines the extant literature on the possible impact of these laws, and suggests recommendations for schools and school practitioners. Anti-LGBTQ+ sex education laws may impact school climate and have been associated with poorer well-being for LGBTQ+ students and cisgender heterosexual allies that encompass a range of sexual orientations and gender identities. With an Executive Order from the US president outlining the need to support LGBTQ+ youth in schools and the US Surgeon General's Advisory to highlight the urgent need to address the nation's youths' mental health, it is imperative to support LGBTQ+ students. We offer strategies that may be used to address anti-LGBTQ+ sex education laws by school administrators and practitioners in a call for advocacy to make changes in sex education policy to improve the well-being of students, particularly LGBTQ+ youth.

Anti‐Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and/or Queer (LGBTQ+) education laws are defined as laws that prohibit or limit schools from discussing same‐sex relationships, broader sexuality, and gender issues in their sexual education curriculum. This study presents a historical context of anti‐LGBTQ+ sex education laws, examines the extant literature on the possible impact of these laws, and suggests recommendations for schools and school practitioners. Anti‐LGBTQ+ sex education laws may impact school climate and have been associated with poorer well‐being for LGBTQ+ students and cisgender heterosexual allies that encompass a range of sexual orientations and gender identities. With an Executive Order from the US president outlining the need to support LGBTQ+ youth in schools and the US Surgeon General's Advisory to highlight the urgent need to address the nation's youths' mental health, it is imperative to support LGBTQ+ students. We offer strategies that may be used to address anti‐LGBTQ+ sex education laws by school administrators and practitioners in a call for advocacy to make changes in sex education policy to improve the well‐being of students, particularly LGBTQ+ youth. Practitioner points: Anti‐LGBTQ+ sex education laws affect at least 10 million children nationwide.Sex education is essential for youth's well‐being and physical and mental health, specifically LGBTQ+ youth.Strategies to address anti‐LGBTQ+ sex education laws through advocacy on an individual level, community level, structural level, and research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Bodily threat monitoring is a core clinical feature of Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and is targeted in psycho‐oncology treatments, yet no comprehensive self‐report measure exists. The aim of this study was the theory‐informed development and initial validation of the Bodily Threat Monitoring Scale (BTMS). Methods: Adult survivors of breast and gynaecological cancers (Study 1: N = 306, age = 37–81 years) and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2: N = 126, age = 10–25 years) completed the BTMS, designed to assess how individuals monitor for and interpret uncertain symptoms as indicating that something is wrong with their body. Participants completed measures to assess construct and criterion validity of the BTMS, and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2) completed the BTMS again 2 weeks later to assess test‐retest reliability. Results: The 19‐item BTMS demonstrated excellent internal consistency across adult and childhood cancer samples (α = 0.90–0.96). Factor analyses indicated two subscales capturing 1. Monitoring of bodily sensations and 2. Threatening interpretations of bodily sensations. Two‐week stability estimates were acceptable. For construct validity, the BTMS correlated with body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity. The BTMS also demonstrated criterion validity, yielding significant associations with FCR, intolerance of uncertainty, help‐seeking behaviours, and quality of life. The BTMS was associated with FCR while controlling for body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity, indicating a unique contribution of this theory‐informed measure. Conclusions: The BTMS shows evidence of sound psychometric properties and could be used to elucidate the role of bodily threat monitoring in the maintenance and management of FCR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Somatic symptoms capture attention, demand interpretation, and promote health behaviors. Symptom appraisal is particularly impactful within uncertain health contexts such as cancer survivorship. Yet, little is known about how individuals make sense of somatic symptoms within uncertain health contexts, nor how this process guides health behaviors. 25 adolescent and young adult survivors of childhood cancer completed semi-structured interviews regarding how they appraise and respond to changing somatic sensations within the uncertain context of survivorship. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subjected to a hybrid deductive-inductive thematic analysis, guided by the Cancer Threat Interpretation model. We constructed three themes. Symptoms as signals of bodily threat (theme 1) captured that participants described commonly interpreting and worrying about everyday sensations as indicating cancer recurrence or new illness. Playing detective with bodily signals (theme 2) captured participants' felt need to employ cognitive and behavioral strategies to determine whether somatic sensations indicated a credible health threat. These two themes are qualified by the final theme, Living with symptom-related uncertainty (theme 3), which captured participants' recognition that post-cancer symptoms are wily and influenced by psychological factors such as anxiety. These data highlight that making sense of everday somatic sensations can be particularly challenging following an experience of cancer. There is a need for novel symptom management approaches that target how somatic sensations are appraised and responded to as signals of bodily threat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: adolescent and young adult; cancer survivor; distress screening; fear of cancer recurrence; psycho-oncology; qualitative; semi-structured interview EN adolescent and young adult cancer survivor distress screening fear of cancer recurrence psycho-oncology qualitative semi-structured interview 123 126 4 01/28/21 20210101 NES 210101 BACKGROUND Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR), defined as "fear, worry or concern relating to the possibility that cancer will come back or progress,"1 is emerging as a primary survivorship issue. Qualitative research interviews could be a useful method for conducting FCR research that is both theory-advancing and patient-centered, however given observed individual variability in distress ratings it will be valuable to implement distress screening protocols in such studies going forward. [Extracted from the article]

Background: For almost two decades, researchers and clinicians have argued that certain aspects of mental health treatment can be removed from clinicians' responsibilities and allocated to technology, preserving valuable clinician time and alleviating the burden on the behavioral health care system. The service delivery tasks that could arguably be allocated to technology without negatively impacting patient outcomes include screening, triage, and referral., Objective: We pilot-tested a chatbot for mental health screening and referral to understand the relationship between potential users' demographics and chatbot use; the completion rate of mental health screening when delivered by a chatbot; and the acceptability of a prototype chatbot designed for mental health screening and referral. This chatbot not only screened participants for psychological distress but also referred them to appropriate resources that matched their level of distress and preferences. The goal of this study was to determine whether a mental health screening and referral chatbot would be feasible and acceptable to users., Methods: We conducted an internet-based survey among a sample of US-based adults. Our survey collected demographic data along with a battery of measures assessing behavioral health and symptoms, stigma (label avoidance and perceived stigma), attitudes toward treatment-seeking, readiness for change, and technology readiness and acceptance. Participants were then offered to engage with our chatbot. Those who engaged with the chatbot completed a mental health screening, received a distress score based on this screening, were referred to resources appropriate for their current level of distress, and were asked to rate the acceptability of the chatbot., Results: We found that mental health screening using a chatbot was feasible, with 168 (75.7%) of our 222 participants completing mental health screening within the chatbot sessions. Various demographic characteristics were associated with a willingness to use the chatbot. The participants who used the chatbot found it to be acceptable. Logistic regression produced a significant model with perceived usefulness and symptoms as significant positive predictors of chatbot use for the overall sample, and label avoidance as the only significant predictor of chatbot use for those currently experiencing distress., Conclusions: Label avoidance, the desire to avoid mental health services to avoid the stigmatized label of mental illness, is a significant negative predictor of care seeking. Therefore, our finding regarding label avoidance and chatbot use has significant public health implications in terms of facilitating access to mental health resources. Those who are high on label avoidance are not likely to seek care in a community mental health clinic, yet they are likely willing to engage with a mental health chatbot, participate in mental health screening, and receive mental health resources within the chatbot session. Chatbot technology may prove to be a way to engage those in care who have previously avoided treatment due to stigma., (©Kristin Kosyluk, Tanner Baeder, Karah Yeona Greene, Jennifer T Tran, Cassidy Bolton, Nele Loecher, Daniel DiEva, Jerome T Galea. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 12.04.2024.)