Daniel R Wells-Prado1, Michael W Ross2, B R Simon Rosser3, Elizabeth J Polter4, Bea D Capistrant5, Ryan Haggart6, Nidhi Kohli7, Badrinath R Konety8, Darryl Mitteldorf9, Kristine M C Talley10, William West11, Christopher W Wheldon12. 1. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, 516 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: wells329@umn.edu. 2. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, 516 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: mwross@umn.edu. 3. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300S. 2nd St., Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. Electronic address: rosser@umn.edu. 4. Division of Epidemiology & Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300S. 2nd St., Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. Electronic address: polte004@umn.edu. 5. School of Social Work, Smith College, Lilly Hall 23 West St., Northampton, MA 01063, USA. Electronic address: bcapistrant@smith.edu. 6. Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, 516 Delaware St SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA; Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, 909 Fulton Street SE, Minneapolis, MN 55414, USA. Electronic address: rhaggart@umn.edu. 7. Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, 250 Education Sciences Bldg, 56 E River Rd, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: nkohli@umn.edu. 8. Department of Urology, Rush Medical College, 600S Paulina St Suite 524, Chicago, IL 60612, USA. Electronic address: badrinath_konety@rush.edu. 9. Malecare Cancer Support, 63 Avenue A, apt 13i, New York, NY 10009, USA. Electronic address: darrylm@malecare.org. 10. School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, 308 SE Harvard St, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: carl0106@umn.edu. 11. Department of Writing Studies, University of Minnesota, 315 Pillsbury Dr SE, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Electronic address: westx005@umn.edu. 12. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA. Electronic address: christopher.wheldon@nih.gov.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated if outness is more a situational or a consistent characteristic in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) treated for prostate cancer and how the disclosure of sexual orientation impacts provider discussions of sexual side effects. METHODS: Data came from Restore, an online cross-sectional survey of 193 GBM prostate cancer survivors living in North America and were analyzed using various statistical models. RESULTS: Disclosure of sexual orientation and of living with prostate cancer were not significantly correlated. Participants who were out regarding sexual orientation were more likely to report that their surgeons and urologists discussed the sexual side effects of treatment. CONCLUSION: Outness appears to be a situational phenomenon. GBM prostate cancer survivors who were out regarding sexual orientation received more discussion surrounding sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment from their providers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is important for healthcare providers to inquire about patient's sexual orientation to provide holistic care to these patients to address health disparities within this group.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we investigated if outness is more a situational or a consistent characteristic in gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) treated for prostate cancer and how the disclosure of sexual orientation impacts provider discussions of sexual side effects. METHODS: Data came from Restore, an online cross-sectional survey of 193 GBM prostate cancer survivors living in North America and were analyzed using various statistical models. RESULTS: Disclosure of sexual orientation and of living with prostate cancer were not significantly correlated. Participants who were out regarding sexual orientation were more likely to report that their surgeons and urologists discussed the sexual side effects of treatment. CONCLUSION: Outness appears to be a situational phenomenon. GBM prostate cancer survivors who were out regarding sexual orientation received more discussion surrounding sexual side effects of prostate cancer treatment from their providers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: It is important for healthcare providers to inquire about patient's sexual orientation to provide holistic care to these patients to address health disparities within this group.
Authors: L Matheson; E K Watson; J Nayoan; R Wagland; A Glaser; A Gavin; P Wright; C Rivas Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2017-04-05 Impact factor: 2.520
Authors: Charles S Kamen; Marilyn Smith-Stoner; Charles E Heckler; Marie Flannery; Liz Margolies Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Nidhi Kohli; Lindsey Lesher; Benjamin D Capistrant; James DeWitt; Gunna Kilian; Badrinath R Konety; Enyinnaya Merengwa; Darryl Mitteldorf; William West Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2017-04-21
Authors: B R Simon Rosser; Shanda L Hunt; Benjamin D Capistrant; Nidhi Kohli; Badrinath R Konety; Darryl Mitteldorf; Michael W Ross; Kristine M Talley; William West Journal: Curr Sex Health Rep Date: 2019-11-08