Perceptions of and barriers to cancer screening by the sexual and gender minority community: a glimpse into the health care disparity

Barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among men who have sex with men: a systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Increasing trends of anal cancer among men who have sex with men (MSM) highlight the importance of anal cancer screening. However, the screening rate of anal cancer among MSM remains relatively low. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate studies examining barriers and facilitators influencing MSM's participation in anal cancer screening.

METHODS

Systematic searches were performed in five databases (Web of Science, Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL). Evidence from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies was extracted and synthesized. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality assessment. Two researchers underwent selection and appraisal independently. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024601449.

RESULTS

305 studies were identified with a total of 32 studies included, including 11 qualitative studies, 18 quantitative studies, and 3 mixed methods studies. The barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were categorized into four domains: individual factors, healthcare system factors, healthcare provider factors, and screen-related factors. Among the four domains, the most frequently reported barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening were individual factors. A lack of knowledge about the risks of HPV, anal cancer, and anal screening (n = 16) was the most significant barrier. In contrast, a greater perceived understanding of anal cancer and screening (n = 6) was identified as the primary facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review provided a comprehensive assessment of barriers and facilitators to anal cancer screening among MSM, highlighting the need for targeted comprehensive intervention programs to enhance acceptance of screening. Implementing effective strategies to address potential barriers and promote facilitators across all domains of public health could significantly increase screening uptake.

Barriers and Nursing Strategies in Oncology Care for LGBTQIA+ People: A Scoping Review

LGBTQIA+ individuals with cancer face significant challenges in their interactions with nurses, which can negatively affect the quality of care, treatment adherence, and access to healthcare. Barriers such as implicit biases, discrimination, and inadequate communication skills contribute to these disparities, alongside a lack of nursing education on gender and sexual diversity. Despite the recognized role of nurses in reducing health inequalities, knowledge about effective strategies to overcome these barriers remains fragmented. This scoping review aims to identify and categorize the main barriers affecting the nurse-patient relationship in oncology and to explore evidence-based nursing interventions that promote equitable and inclusive care. A systematic literature search was conducted between January and February 2025 in PUBMED, SCOPUS, and Web of Science, including studies published in the last 10 years. Study management was performed using Zotero (version 6.0.30), and quality assessment was conducted with the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus. This review follows the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI scoping review methodology. The findings will provide insights into the primary barriers, highlight effective nursing interventions, and identify gaps in education and clinical guidelines, contributing to the development of more inclusive oncology care practices.

Relationships Among Determinants of Health, Cancer Screening Participation, and Sexual Minority Identity: A Systematic Review

Purpose: To address cancer screening disparities and reduce cancer risk among sexual minority (SM) groups, this review identifies individual, interpersonal, and community/societal determinants of cancer screening (non)participation among differing SM identities. Methods: Seven scientific databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) used quantitative methods; (2) English language; (3) cancer screening focus; and (4) at least one SM group identified. Articles were excluded if: (1) analysis was not disaggregated by SM identity (n = 29) and (2) quantitative analysis excluded determinants of cancer screening (n = 19). The Sexual and Gender Minority Health Disparities Research Framework guided literature synthesis. Results: Twelve studies addressed cervical (n = 4), breast (n = 3), breast/cervical (n = 3), or multiple cancers (n = 2). Other cancers were excluded due to inclusion/exclusion criteria. The total sample was 20,622 (mean 1525), including lesbian (n = 13,409), bisexual (n = 4442), gay (n = 1386), mostly heterosexual (n = 1302), and queer (n = 83) identities. Studies analyzing individual-level determinants (n = 8) found that socioeconomic status affected cervical, but not breast, cancer screening among lesbian and bisexual participants (n = 2). At the interpersonal level (n = 7), provider-patient relationship was a determinant of cervical cancer screening among lesbian participants (n = 4); a relationship not studied for other groups. Studies analyzing community/societal determinants (n = 5) found that rurality potentially affected cervical cancer screening among lesbian, but not bisexual people (n = 3). Conclusions: This review identified socioeconomic status, provider-patient relationship, and rurality as determinants affecting cancer screening among SM people. While literature addresses diverse SM groups, inclusion/exclusion criteria identified studies addressing cisgender women. Addressing disparities in the identified determinants of cervical cancer screening may improve participation among SM women. Further research is needed to understand determinants of cancer screening unique to other SM groups.

Cancer screening attendance rates in transgender and gender-diverse patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To examine disparities in attendance rates at cancer screening services between transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) people in comparison with their cisgender (CG) counterparts, and to determine whether these differences were based on the anatomical organ screened.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO) and Cochrane Library from inception to 30 September 2023.

METHODS

Studies for inclusion were case-control or cross-sectional studies with quantitative data that investigated TGD adults attending any cancer screening service. Exclusion criteria were studies with participants who were ineligible for cancer screening or without samples from TGD individuals, qualitative data and a cancer diagnosis from symptomatic presentation or incidental findings. A modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess risk of bias, during which seven reports were found incompatible with the inclusion criteria and excluded. Results were synthesised through random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

We identified 25 eligible records, of which 18 were included in the analysis. These were cross-sectional studies, including retrospective chart reviews and survey analyses, and encompassed over 14.8 million participants. The main outcomes measured were up-to-date (UTD) and lifetime (LT) attendance. Meta-analysis found differences for UTD cervical (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.60, p<0.0001) and mammography (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.87, p=0.02) but not for prostate or colorectal screening. There were no meaningful differences seen in LT attendance based on quantitative synthesis. Narrative synthesis of the seven remaining articles mostly supported the meta-analysis. Reduced rates of screening engagement in TGD participants were found for UTD cervical and mammography screening, alongside LT mammography screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with their CG counterparts, TGD individuals had lower rates of using cervical and mammography screening at the recommended frequencies but displayed similar prevalences of LT attendance. The greatest disparity was seen in UTD cervical screening. Limitations of this review included high risk of bias within studies, high heterogeneity and a lack of resources for further statistical testing. Bridging gaps in healthcare to improve cancer screening experiences and outcomes will require consolidated efforts including working with the TGD community.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022368911.

Characteristics of Clinicians Caring for Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals and Guideline Concordance of Clinicians' Cervical Cancer Screening Counseling for Cisgender Individuals Versus Transgender Men and Nonbinary Individuals with a Cervix

Purpose: We examined characteristics of clinicians caring for transgender men and nonbinary (TMNB) individuals and guideline concordance of clinicians' cervical cancer screening recommendations. Methods: Using a survey of clinicians who performed ≥10 cervical cancer screenings in 2019, we studied characteristics of clinicians who do versus do not report caring for TMNB individuals and guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women. Results: In our sample (N = 492), 49.2% reported caring for TMNB individuals, and 25.4% reported performing cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals with a cervix. Differences in guideline concordance of screening recommendations for TMNB individuals with a cervix versus cisgender women (45.8% vs. 50% concordant) were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Sizable proportions of clinicians cared for and performed cervical cancer screening for TMNB individuals. Research is needed to better understand clinicians' identified knowledge deficits to develop interventions (e.g., clinician trainings) to improve gender-affirming cervical cancer prevention.

Shared decision-making before prostate cancer screening decisions

Decisions around prostate-specific antigen screening require a patient-centred approach, considering the benefits and risks of potential harm. Using shared decision-making (SDM) can improve men's knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. SDM is supported by evidence, but can be difficult to implement in clinical settings. An inclusive definition of SDM was used in order to determine the prevalence of SDM in prostate cancer screening decisions. Despite consensus among guidelines endorsing SDM practice, the prevalence of SDM occurring before the decision to undergo or forgo prostate-specific antigen testing varied between 11% and 98%, and was higher in studies in which SDM was self-reported by physicians than in patient-reported recollections and observed practices. The influence of trust and continuity in physician-patient relationships were identified as facilitators of SDM, whereas common barriers included limited appointment times and poor health literacy. Decision aids, which can help physicians to convey health information within a limited time frame and give patients increased autonomy over decisions, are underused and were not shown to clearly influence whether SDM occurs. Future studies should focus on methods to facilitate the use of SDM in clinical settings.

Gender oncology: recommendations and consensus of the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM)

BACKGROUND

Following the development of gender medicine in the past 20 years, more recently in the field of oncology an increasing amount of evidence suggests gender differences in the epidemiology of cancers, as well as in the response and toxicity associated with therapies. In a gender approach, critical issues related to sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations must also be considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A working group of opinion leaders approved by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM) has been set up with the aim of drafting a shared document on gender oncology. Through the 'consensus conference' method of the RAND/University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) variant, the members of the group evaluated statements partly from the scientific literature and partly produced by the experts themselves [good practice points (GPPs)], on the following topics: (i) Healthcare organisation, (ii) Therapy, (iii) Host factors, (iv) Cancer biology, and (v) Communication and social interventions. Finally, in support of each specific topic, they considered it appropriate to present some successful case studies.

RESULTS

A total of 42 articles met the inclusion criteria, from which 50 recommendations were extracted. Panel participants were given the opportunity to propose additional evidence from studies not included in the research results, from which 32 statements were extracted, and to make recommendations not derived from literature such as GPPs, four of which have been developed. After an evaluation of relevance by the panel, it was found that 81 recommendations scored >7, while 3 scored between 4 and 6.9, and 2 scored below 4.

CONCLUSIONS

This consensus and the document compiled thereafter represent an attempt to evaluate the available scientific evidence on the theme of gender oncology and to suggest standard criteria both for scientific research and for the care of patients in clinical practice that should take gender into account.

Gaps in Adhering to Pap Testing Recommendations and Related Barriers in a Sample of Young Adults in the US

Given ongoing gaps in adherence to Pap testing recommendations, this study examined: 1) adherence to Pap test screening recommendations; and 2) barriers to Pap test screening among those who were nonadherent, using constructs from the Andersen model. We analyzed Spring 2022 survey data among 541 US young adults who reported having a cervix (n = 541; mean age = 27.73, 42.1% heterosexual, 57.9% sexual minority, 86.0% woman, 3.7% transgender man, 68.2% White, 31.8% racial/ethnic minority). Multivariable logistic regression examined sociodemographic correlates of nonadherence to Pap testing recommendations (i.e., no Pap testing in the past 3 years). Among those who were nonadherent, barriers to Pap testing were assessed. 68.6% (n = 371) were defined as adherent and 31.4% (n = 170) nonadherent. Multivariable regression findings indicated significant differences by race/ethnicity such that Asians (vs. Whites) were more likely to be nonadherent (OR = 2.41, CI = 1.11, 3.70, p = .021); no other differences in relation to race/ethnicity or sexual/gender identity were found. The most commonly reported barriers were: "I have not gotten around to it" (42.9%), "getting a Pap test is just not a priority for me" (30.6%), "fear/worry" (28.2%), "dislike/don't like having procedures done" (27.1%), "my healthcare provider has never mentioned it" (21.2%), "haven't had sex so I don't consider myself at high risk" (20.6%), and "COVID-19 pandemic prevented me" (15.3%). Pap testing is underutilized among young adults in the US, particularly Asians. Multilevel interventions must address barriers within the healthcare system (e.g., provider recommendation), external environment (e.g., societal factors), and individual realm (e.g., perceptions).

Inequities in colorectal and breast cancer screening: At the intersection of race/ethnicity, sexuality, and gender

Objective

To investigate the joint impact of sexual orientation, gender identity, and race/ethnicity on colorectal and breast cancer screening disparities in the United States.

Methods

Utilizing sampling weighted data from the 2016 and 2018 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, we assessed differences in two metrics via chi-square statistics: 1) lifetime uptake, and 2) up-to-date colorectal and breast cancer screening by sexual orientation and gender identity, within and across racial/ethnic classifications.

Results

Within specific races/ethnicities, lifetime CRC screening was higher among gay/lesbian (within NH-White, Hispanic, and Asian/Pacific Islander) and bisexual individuals (Hispanic) compared to straight individuals, and lowest overall among transgender women and transgender nonconforming populations (p < 0.05). Asian transgender women had the lowest lifetime CRC screening (13.0%; w.n. = 1,428). Lifetime breast cancer screening was lowest among the Hispanic bisexual population (86.6%; w.n. = 26,940) and Hispanic transgender nonconforming population (71.8%; w.n. = 739); within all races, SGM individuals (except NH-White, Hispanic, and Black bisexual populations, and NH-White transgender men) had greater breast cancer screening adherence compared to straight individuals.

Conclusions

Due to small, unweighted sample sizes, results should be interpreted with caution. Heterogeneity in screening participation by SGM status within and across racial/ethnic groups were observed, revealing the need to disaggregate data to account for intersecting identities and for studies with larger sample sizes to increase estimate reliability.

Prevalence of self-reported cancer based on sexual orientation in the United States: a comparative analysis between lesbian, bisexual, gay, and heterosexual individuals

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to compare the prevalence and likelihood of self-reported (SR) cancer diagnosis between lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) groups and the heterosexual population in the United States between 2017 and 2021.

METHODS

This study analyzed data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) 2017-2021, which included 134,372 heterosexual and 4576 LGB individuals aged 18 and above. The prevalence of any SR cancer and some selected cancers were calculated for the LGB and compared with heterosexual adults. Sexual orientation was used to predict SR cancer diagnosis for each sex using multiple logistic regression, adjusting for other sociodemographic determinants.

RESULTS

The unadjusted prevalence of any SR cancer among the LGB population was 9.0%. Lesbian and Bisexual women had higher prevalence of SR cancer of the cervix, uterus, ovary, thyroid, bone, skin melanoma, leukemia, and other blood cancers than Heterosexual women. Gay and Bisexual men had a higher prevalence of SR cancer of the bladder, kidney, skin (non-melanoma, and other kinds), bone, lymphoma, and leukemia than Heterosexual men. After adjusting for other socio-demographic factors, gay men were 1.73 (CI 1.14-2.63, p = 0.01) times more likely than heterosexual men to be diagnosed with cancer, while lesbian women were 2.26 (CI 1.24-4.16, p = 0.009) times more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than heterosexual women.

CONCLUSION

Some sexual minority subgroups are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their heterosexual counterparts. As a result, more research and SM-specific intervention efforts should focus on cancer risk assessment, screening, prevention, treatment, and survivorship in SM populations.

Investigating the Joint Effect of Allostatic Load among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Adults with Risk of Cancer Mortality

Sexual minorities (SM) have higher chronic physiologic stress as indicated by allostatic load (AL), which may be explained in part by consistent experiences of discriminatory practices. This is one of the first studies to examine the joint effects of SM status and AL on the association with long-term risk for cancer death. Retrospective analyses were conducted on 12,470 participants using National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from years 2001 through 2010 linked with the National Death Index through December 31, 2019. Cox proportional hazards models estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of cancer deaths between groups of SM (those reporting as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or having same-sex sexual partners) status and AL. SM adults living with high AL (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.40-4.65) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults living with low AL (n = 6674). Among those living with high AL, SM (n = 326) had a 2-fold increased risk of cancer death (aHR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.33-3.84) when compared to straight/heterosexual adults with high AL (n = 4957). SM with high AL have an increased risk of cancer mortality. These findings highlight important implications for promoting a focused agenda on cancer prevention with strategies that reduce chronic stress for SM adults.

Physician Perceptions on Cancer Screening for LGBTQ+ Patients

The LGBTQ+ community experiences cancer disparities due to increased risk factors and lower screening rates, attributable to health literacy gaps and systemic barriers. We sought to understand the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge base of healthcare providers regarding cancer screening for LGBTQ+ patients. A 20-item IRB-approved survey was distributed to physicians through professional organizations. The survey assessed experiences and education regarding the LGBTQ+ community and perceptions of patient concerns with different cancer screenings on a 5-point Likert scale. Complete responses were collected from 355 providers. Only 100 (28%) reported past LGBTQ+-related training and were more likely to be female (p = 0.020), have under ten years of practice (p = 0.014), or practice family/internal medicine (p < 0.001). Most (85%) recognized that LGBTQ+ subpopulations experience nuanced health issues, but only 46% confidently understood them, and 71% agreed their clinics would benefit from training. Family/internal medicine practitioners affirmed the clinical relevance of patients' sexual orientation (94%; 62% for medical/radiation oncology). Prior training affected belief in the importance of sexual orientation (p < 0.001), confidence in understanding LGBTQ+ health concerns (p < 0.001), and willingness to be listed as "LGBTQ+-friendly" (p = 0.005). Our study suggests that despite a paucity of formal training, most providers acknowledge that LGBTQ+ patients have unique health needs. Respondents had a lack of consensus regarding cancer screenings for lesbian and transgender patients, indicating the need for clearer screening standards for LGBTQ+ subpopulations and educational programs for providers.

Cancer care in transgender and gender-diverse persons: results from two national surveys among providers and health service users by the Italian Association of Medical Oncology

BACKGROUND

Transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) population represents an underserved group across the cancer care continuum. To assess the perspective of both oncology health care providers (OHPs) and TGD individuals in Italy, we conducted two national surveys: one among 2407 OHPs about their attitudes, knowledge and behavior toward TGD patients, and one among TGD persons about their health needs, experiences and barriers encountered in the use of health services across the cancer continuum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The surveys were self-compiled web-based computer-aided web interview, conducted in Italy within the 'OncoGender-Promoting Inclusion in Oncology' project, led by the Italian national cancer society [Associazione Italiana di Oncologia Medica (AIOM)]-associated researchers. All members of AIOM were invited by e-mail to participate in the OHP survey. TGD persons were reached through advocacy groups and consumers' panel. The recruitment was completed on a voluntary basis. Survey data were collected and managed using an online platform managed by ELMA Research, an independent pharmaceutical marketing agency.

RESULTS

A total of 305 OHPs (13% of AIOM members) and 190 TGD individuals participated in the surveys. Only 19% of OHPs felt competent in providing care to TGD patients and 21% declared not to feel comfortable in treating TGD patients. Seventy-one percent of TGD persons reported that they had never joined any cancer screening program; 32% reported one or more acts of discrimination by health care providers. Seventy-two percent of OHPs recognized the lack of specific education on cancer care for TGD patients and deemed it necessary to receive adequate training.

CONCLUSIONS

A general lack of knowledge among OHPs about TGD health issues seems to be the main driver of difficulties in providing assistance and of discriminatory attitudes against TGD individuals. Ultimately, this whole issue generates access barriers and contributes to lack of trust in health care services. Educational interventions and an implementation of person-centric cancer policies are urgently needed.

Comprehensive Reconstructive Care for Patients of All Gender Identities After Cancer of the Breast

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer can affect anyone; therefore, it affects people of all gender identities. Reconstructive options after breast cancer must then address the needs of all people. Our institution is unique in its provision of both high-level comprehensive breast and gender affirmation care. In our practice, patients have expressed gender diverse identities during their breast cancer reconstructive journey. In these cases, goals have deviated from traditional breast restoration, gravitating toward gender-affirming mastectomy, or results often seen with "top surgery." We present a framework for the administration of breast cancer care and discussions of reconstruction from a lens of gender inclusivity. Breast cancer is a diagnosis that has been gendered, resulting in the erasure and exclusion of reconstructive needs for people affected by breast cancer that are not cisgender women. This is illustrated through the case of a nonbinary individual seen in breast cancer clinic for multifocal ductal carcinoma in situ. Our standard review of options of "going flat," implant-based reconstruction, and autologous reconstruction led to initial confusion given their early exploration of gender identity co-occurring with a new diagnosis of breast cancer. These scenarios can be challenging when viewed solely from the perspective of a breast reconstructive surgeon or a gender-affirming surgeon alone. Both perspectives are often needed. Our gender-affirming and breast reconstructive teams have discussed methods to identify patients who require more robust discussion of gender identity and reconstructive options in the setting of breast cancer, such as chest masculinization. By adding gender-affirming surgeons to the list of providers available to counsel breast cancer patients, we may be able to better provide early education on all reconstructive options and appropriately address the needs of transgender and gender diverse people affected by breast cancer.

Reinforcing or Disrupting Gender Affirmation: The Impact of Cancer on Transgender Embodiment and Identity

There is a pressing need for greater understanding and focus on cancer survivorship and informal cancer caring of trans people (binary and non-binary), across tumor types, to inform culturally safe trans inclusive cancer information and care. This qualitative study, part of the mixed methods Out with Cancer project, examined experiences of trans embodiment and identity after cancer diagnosis and treatment. We drew on open-ended survey responses from 63 trans cancer survivors and 23 trans cancer carers, as well as interviews and a photo-elicitation activity with a subset of 22 participants (15 cancer survivors, 7 cancer carers). Reflexive thematic analysis identified three themes: Cancer enhances trans embodiment, through experiences of gender euphoria following cancer treatment, and acceleration of decisions about gender affirmation; cancer erases or inhibits gender affirmation; trans embodiment is invisible or pathologized in cancer care. These findings demonstrate that trans embodiment and identity, as well as the process of gender affirmation, may be disrupted by cancer or informal cancer caring. Conversely, cancer and cancer treatment can positively impact the embodied identity and lives of trans people, despite the anxiety and strain of negotiating medical procedures. However, if healthcare professionals operate within a cis-heteronormative framework and do not understand the meaning of embodied change following cancer treatment for trans individuals, these positive benefits may not be realized.

Health inequities in human papillomavirus prevention, diagnostics and clinical care in the USA: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Human papillomavirus (HPV) represents the most common STI in the USA. HPV inequities in prevention, diagnostics and clinical care persist. We define inequities as systematic, avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this scoping review are to chart existing data on HPV-related inequities, identify gaps in existing literature and guide future research to reduce these inequities.

METHODS

We completed a scoping review following guidelines from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses scoping reviews extension. We performed a literature search on PubMed and Ovid Embase in July 2022 for articles pertaining to HPV and evaluating populations within the USA. We included English language publications from 2018 to 2022 evaluating at least one health inequity outlined by the National Institutes of Health. General publication characteristics and health inequity data were charted in a masked, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form. We analysed frequencies of health inequities and summarised main findings from included studies.

RESULTS

Our final sample included 170 publications. The most common inequities examined were race/ethnicity (140 studies), sex or gender (97 studies), and income (69 studies). Many historically marginalised racial/ethnic groups had lower rates of HPV-related knowledge, vaccination and worse overall outcomes related to HPV. Compared with women, men had lower rates of HPV vaccination and provider recommendation, and higher rates of HPV-infection. Results regarding income were largely conflicting.

CONCLUSION

Findings from our review demonstrate clear gaps in HPV-related inequity research. Vaccine completion, provider recommendation and intersectionality should continue to be evaluated to implement targeted interventions.

Recommendations from Latinx Trans and Non-Binary Individuals to Promote Cancer Prevention in Puerto Rico and Florida

Latinx trans and non-binary individuals (LTNB) face increased cancer-related health disparities. Studies evidence how barriers at the individual, provider and organizational levels drive cancer disparities among LTNB individuals. These barriers increase the emotional discomfort associated with testing and disengagement from cancer prevention efforts. Moreover, there are no guidelines or interventions that address cancer prevention specifically among LTNB individuals. There is a need to develop interventions informed by the LTNB communities to promote cancer prevention and screening. The study aims to describe the recommendations provided by LTNB individuals to foster cancer screening and prevention in the communities residing in Puerto Rico and Florida. We conducted two online focus groups with a total of 15 LTNB participants. Participants were recruited using non-probabilistic purposive sampling. We used rapid-qualitative analysis for data interpretation. Findings are gathered in three main themes: (1) recommendations for promoting cancer prevention screening among providers; (2) specific recommendations to promote cancer screening among LTBN individuals; and (3) recommendations on delivery formats to foster cancer prevention. These results evidence the need and feasibility of developing community informed tailored interventions targeting cancer screening and preventative care to reduce cancer-related health disparities among the LTNB population.