SynthesisPsycho-oncology2026
Experiences of Inclusion and Exclusion Across the Gynaecological Cancer Continuum for Individuals With Diverse Gender and Sexuality Backgrounds: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDespite growing research on cancer care and survivorship among LGBTQIA+ populations, studies specific to gynaecological cancer care remain limited. This review explores experiences of inclusion and exclusion in gynaecological cancer care services for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
methodsA systematic search was conducted in August 2024, retrieving 4000 results, of which 15 met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal was conducted using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, and a convergent integrated approach was applied with narrative synthesis of findings according to the socio-ecological model of health.
resultsAll articles focussed on cervical screening. Experiences of inclusion and exclusion across intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organisational levels related to the socio-ecological model. At the intrapersonal level, lack of individual knowledge and gender dysphoria contributed to exclusion, while access to information and supportive screening experiences fostered inclusion. Interpersonal factors associated with exclusion were inadequate provider knowledge, poor communication, lack of sensitivity and fear of speculum insertion due to experiences of pain, while inclusion was associated with strong patient-provider relationships and knowledgeable, affirming care. At the organisational level, exclusion stemmed from binary intake forms, gendered environments, insurance issues, and absence in heath resources, while inclusive strategies, such as non-gendered waiting rooms, inclusive materials, and appropriate insurance coverage supported engagement.
conclusionImproved health literacy, healthcare provider knowledge, and welcoming clinical environments are key to inclusive cervical screening experiences for LGBTQIA+ individuals. Despite the initial aim to review care across the gynaecological cancer continuum, available studies focussed only on cervical screening. Research is urgently needed to inform inclusive practices across all tumour types and stages of gynaecological cancer care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.