RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Cancer screening attendance rates in transgender and gender-diverse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.04.17.24305969
DO 10.1101/2024.04.17.24305969
A1 Chan, Alvina
A1 Jamieson, Charlotte
A1 Draper, Hannah
A1 O’Callaghan, Stewart
A1 Guinn, Barbara-ann
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/04/19/2024.04.17.24305969.abstract
AB Objectives To examine disparities between transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) and cisgender (CG) people through analysis of attendance rates for cancer screening and compare differences between types of cancer screened.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources PubMed, EMBASE [via Ovid], CINAHL Complete [via EBSCO], and Cochrane Library from inception to 30 September 2023.Methods Studies for inclusion were case-control or cross-sectional studies with quantitative data investigating TGD adults attending any cancer screening services. Exclusion criteria were studies with participants ineligible for cancer screening or without samples from TGD individuals, qualitative data, and cancer diagnosis from symptomatic presentation or incidental findings. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias and reports rated poor were excluded. Results were synthesised through random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.Results Searches identified 25 eligible records, whereby 18 met risk of bias requirements. These were cross-sectional studies, including retrospective chart reviews and survey analyses, and encompassed over 14.8 million participants. The main outcomes measured were up-to-date (UTD) and lifetime (LT) attendance. Meta-analysis found differences for UTD cervical (OR=0.37, 95% CI [0.23, 0.60], p<0.0001) and mammography screening (OR=0.41, 95% CI [0.20, 0.87], p=0.02). There were no meaningful differences seen in LT results. Pooling total odds ratios for each synthesis (cervical, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer) showed reduced attendance in TGD participants (OR=0.50, 95% CI [0.37, 0.68], p<0.0001). Narrative synthesis of seven remaining articles supported meta-analysis results, finding generally reduced screening rates in TGD versus CG participants.Conclusions TGD individuals are overall less likely to utilise cancer screening compared to CG counterparts. The greatest disparity in attendance was seen specifically in UTD cervical screening. Limitations of this review included high risk of bias within studies, high heterogeneity, and a lack of resources for further statistical testing. Individual and structural factors such as psychological distress, socioeconomic status, and healthcare accessibility can prevent TGD people from accessing cancer screening. Bridging this gap will require consolidated efforts from healthcare systems including reviews of structural design, innovation of accessible and inclusive technology, education of HCPs, and reassessment of patient information resources. Joint production of future interventions with the TGD community is vital to improving both cancer screening experience and outcomes.Funding This work was supported by the INSPIRE grant generously awarded to the Hull York Medical School by the Academy of Medical Sciences through the Wellcome Trust [Ref: IR5\1018].Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42022368911.What is already known about this topic?Many transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people experience difficulties accessing cancer screening and so face potentially increased risks in morbidity and mortality.What this study adds?This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated differences in attendance of cancer screening services between TGD and CG people and explored reasons underpinning present disparities.TGD individuals are less likely to attend cancer screening services overall, and are less likely to be up-to-date with breast and cervical cancer screening.How this study might affect research, practise of policy?To reduce inequities, individual and institutional barriers must be addressed through research, technological innovation, reviews of current structural design, and improved education.It is vital that future interventions for TGD people are jointly produced with the community to improve both cancer screening experience and outcomes.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis work was supported by the INSPIRE grant generously awarded to the Hull York Medical School by the Academy of Medical Sciences through the Wellcome Trust [Ref: IR5\1018].Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were found in articles we have cited.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced are available online at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10621705 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10621705