A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Cancer screening rates among transgender adults: Cross-sectional analysis of primary care data. | LitMetric

Cancer screening rates among transgender adults: Cross-sectional analysis of primary care data.

Can Fam Physician

Scientist at the Centre for Urban Health Solutions in the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute at St Michael's Hospital, a staff physician in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at St Michael's Hospital, Assistant Professor and Clinician Scientist in the Department of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto, Adjunct Scientist at ICES, and Assistant Professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Published: January 2019

Objective: To compare rates of cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening between patients who are transgender and those who are cisgender (ie, nontransgender).

Design: Cross-sectional study.

Setting: A multisite academic family health team in Toronto, Ont, serving more than 45 000 enrolled patients.

Participants: All patients enrolled in the family health team who were eligible for cervical, breast, or colorectal cancer screening. Patients were identified as transgender using an automated search of the practice electronic medical record followed by manual audit.

Main Outcome Measures: Screening rates for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer calculated using data from the electronic medical record and provincial cancer screening registry. Screening rates among the transgender and cisgender populations were compared using tests, and logistic regression modeling was used to understand differences in screening after adjustment for age, neighbourhood income quintile, and number of primary care visits.

Results: A total of 120 transgender patients were identified as eligible for cancer screening. More than 85% of transgender patients eligible for breast cancer screening were assigned male at birth. Transgender patients were less likely than cisgender patients (n = 20 514) were to be screened for cervical (56% vs 72%, = .001; adjusted odds ratio [OR] of 0.39; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.62), breast (33% vs 65%, < .001; adjusted OR = 0.27; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59), and colorectal cancer (55% vs 70%, = .046; adjusted OR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.99).

Conclusion: In this setting, transgender patients were less likely to receive recommended cancer screening compared with the cisgender population. Future research and quality improvement activities should aim to understand and address potential patient, provider, and system factors.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6347308PMC

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

cancer screening
28
colorectal cancer
16
transgender patients
16
screening rates
12
cervical breast
12
breast colorectal
12
cancer
9
screening
9
transgender
8
rates transgender
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!