Cargando…

Attitudes of transgender men and non-binary people to cervical screening: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study in the UK

BACKGROUND: Transgender men and non-binary people assigned female at birth (TMNB) who have not had surgery to remove the cervix are recommended to undertake cervical screening with the same frequency as cisgender women, but evidence suggests that TMNB have lower odds of lifetime and up-to-date cervi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Berner, Alison M, Connolly, Dean J, Pinnell, Imogen, Wolton, Aedan, MacNaughton, Adriana, Challen, Chloe, Nambiar, Kate, Bayliss, Jacob, Barrett, James, Richards, Christina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Royal College of General Practitioners 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8136582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34001539
http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2020.0905
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Transgender men and non-binary people assigned female at birth (TMNB) who have not had surgery to remove the cervix are recommended to undertake cervical screening with the same frequency as cisgender women, but evidence suggests that TMNB have lower odds of lifetime and up-to-date cervical screening uptake. AIM: To understand the attitudes towards and preferences for cervical screening among UK-based TMNB. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional survey of TMNB at an NHS gender identity clinic (GIC) and an NHS sexual health service specialising in care of transgender people. METHOD: Recruitment was via email invitations to patients of the GIC and sexual health service. Inclusion criteria were: female sex assigned at birth; transgender man, masculine, or non-binary gender identity; aged ≥18 years; and UK resident. Quantitative results were analysed using descriptive statistics, and free-text comments were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total there were 137 participants; 80% identified as transmasculine,18% as non-binary, and the remaining participants reported other noncisgender identities. Sixty-four participants (47%) were eligible for cervical screening and 37 (58%) of those had been screened. Only 34 (53%) of those eligible felt they had sufficient information about cervical screening. Just over half (n = 71/134, 53%) stated they would like the option to self-swab for high-risk human papillomavirus. Only half (n = 68/134, 51%) of participants were in favour of an automatic invitation for cervical screening. Thematic analysis identified a number of additional barriers to and facilitators of screening. CONCLUSION: TMNB have identified numerous potential areas for change that may improve cervical screening uptake and patient experience.