Conectar
To synthesise the literature about transgender and non-binary people's experiences of cervical cancer screening and identify ways to improve screening.
Transgender people often face barriers to accessing health services including cervical screening, where transgender people have a lower uptake than cisgender women.
A scoping review was undertaken following the Arksey and O’Malley (2005) framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Following database searching of Medline via PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and CINHAL, 23 papers published between 2008 and 2003 were included. Papers were included if they shared trans and non-binary people's experiences of cervical screening and were written in English. There were no date or geographical data restrictions due to the paucity of research.
Transgender people experience barriers to cervical screening including gender dysphoria, a history of sexual trauma, and mistrust in health professionals or health services, which can result in having negative experiences of screening or avoiding screening. Health professionals can help to create a positive experience by informing themselves about best practices for trans+ health.
Changes are required to improve transgender people's experiences and uptake of cervical screening. Improving medical education about trans health and updating health systems would help to combat issues discussed.
Having an understanding of the reasons why accessing health services can be more difficult for transgender people will help health professionals to provide appropriate care for transgender patients. This paper details this in the context of cervical cancer screening and can be applied to other areas of healthcare.
We have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines and used the PRISMA-ScR reporting method. No Patient or Public Contribution.
One-third of children in England have special educational needs (SEN) provision recorded during their school career. The proportion of children with SEN provision varies between schools and demographic groups, which may reflect variation in need, inequitable provision and/or systemic factors. There is scant evidence on whether SEN provision improves health and education outcomes.
The Health Outcomes of young People in Education (HOPE) research programme uses administrative data from the Education and Child Health Insights from Linked Data—ECHILD—which contains data from all state schools, and contacts with National Health Service hospitals in England, to explore variation in SEN provision and its impact on health and education outcomes. This umbrella protocol sets out analyses across four work packages (WP). WP1 defined a range of ‘health phenotypes’, that is health conditions expected to need SEN provision in primary school. Next, we describe health and education outcomes (WP1) and individual, school-level and area-level factors affecting variation in SEN provision across different phenotypes (WP2). WP3 assesses the impact of SEN provision on health and education outcomes for specific health phenotypes using a range of causal inference methods to account for confounding factors and possible selection bias. In WP4 we review local policies and synthesise findings from surveys, interviews and focus groups of service users and providers to understand factors associated with variation in and experiences of identification, assessment and provision for SEN. Triangulation of findings on outcomes, variation and impact of SEN provision for different health phenotypes in ECHILD, with experiences of SEN provision will inform interpretation of findings for policy, practice and families and methods for future evaluation.
Research ethics committees have approved the use of the ECHILD database and, separately, the survey, interviews and focus groups of young people, parents and service providers. These stakeholders will contribute to the design, interpretation and communication of findings.
FreshRSS 