Individual and institutional predictors of sexual orientation and gender identity data collection in oncology practice: An ASCO survey.

6520 Background: Most oncology practices do not collect patients’ sexual orientation (SO) or gender identity (GI) (SOGI), prohibiting assessment of sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients’ cancer disparities and identification of such patients in cancer care or research. Studies report that 90% of SGM patients would disclose their SOGI, while 78% of clinicians believe that patients would not. Preliminary evidence indicates that SOGI disclosure improves health outcomes. Organizations, including ASCO and NIH, have called for routine SOGI data collection, but institutional barriers, e.g. lack of SOGI fields in EMRs, hinder progress. This study aimed to delineate institutional and individual-level factors related to SOGI data collection in oncology. Methods: From Oct to Nov 2020, an anonymous 54 item online survey was distributed to ASCO members via direct outreach, listservs and social media. The survey assessed whether respondents’ institutions collect SOGI data, factors related to SOGI data collection, respondents’ attitudes about SOGI data and SGM patients, and demographics. Simple and multiple logistic regression modeling determined factors associated with respondents’ reports of SOGI data collection at their institutions. Results: Nearly half of 257 respondents reported their institutions collect SO and GI data (42%, 48%, respectively); over a third reported their institutions did not collect SO or GI data (36%, 34%, respectively); and a fifth were unsure (22%, 18%, respectively). Collection of both SO and GI was associated in unadjusted models with leadership support and having resources for SOGI data collection. SO collection was also associated with type of institution, having an SGM family member, and belief that knowing SO is important for providing quality care. GI collection was associated with the respondent’s role, SO, political leaning, past SGM training, and belief that knowing GI is important for providing care. Odds ratios (OR) from adjusted models with 95% confidence intervals (CI) comparing respondents who reported SO or GI collection as “Yes” vs. “No” are reported (comparisons to “Unsure” not presented). Most respondents (79%) felt it was important to know both SO and GI to provide quality care, while 14% felt neither was important. Conclusions: Whether or not institutions collect SOGI data is related to many factors. Despite limited statistical power, the same three factors emerged as drivers of data collection: leadership support, resources and individuals’ attitudes. These are critical and possibly self-reinforcing elements for collecting SOGI data.[Table: see text]