PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine receipt of follow-up surveillance among sexual minority and heterosexual survivors and identify survivor-, physician-, and practice-level characteristics associated with follow-up surveillance. METHODS: An average of 3 years after their stage I-III colorectal cancer diagnosis, we recruited survivors from four cancer registries. A questionnaire, which queried about sexual orientation and other eligibility criteria, was mailed to all cancer survivors. Subsequently, 418 eligible survivors without recurrent disease participated in a telephone survey. Colorectal cancer-specific follow-up surveillance was defined as colonoscopy, carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test, or imaging test. We used logistic regression with forward selection to obtain models that best explained each follow-up test. RESULTS: About 10% of survivors received no follow-up surveillance, while 70% had colonoscopies. While survivors irrespective of sexual orientation received follow-up surveillance, sexual minority survivors had 3 times the odds of receiving imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors. Having a designated provider of any specialty was most salient for the receipt of surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: Sexual minority survivors' greater receipt of imaging tests may indicate providers perceive them at greater risk for recurrence than heterosexual survivors. Future studies need to examine provider behaviors towards monitoring colorectal cancer survivors of diverse sexual orientations. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Guidelines recommend surveillance of colorectal cancer survivors to improve survival. This study showed that having a designated provider for follow-up is most salient for the receipt of surveillance, most survivors receive surveillance, and sexual minority survivors had more imaging tests compared to heterosexual survivors.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Nursing homes remain subjected to institutional racial segregation in the United States. However, a standardized approach to measure segregation in nursing homes does not appear to be established. A systematic review was conducted to identify all formal measurement approaches to evaluate racial segregation among nursing home facilities, and to then identify the association between segregation and quality of care in this context. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched (January 2018) for publications relating to nursing home segregation. Following the PRISMA guidelines, studies were included that formally measured racial segregation of nursing homes residents across facilities with regional-level data. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Formal segregation measures included the Dissimilarity Index, Disparities Quality Index, Modified Thiel's Entropy Index, Gini coefficient, and adapted models. The most common data sources were the Minimum Data Set (MDS; resident-level), the Certification and Survey Provider Enhanced Reporting data (CASPER; facility-level), and the Area Resource File/ U.S. Census Data (regional-level). Most studies showed evidence of racial segregation among U.S. nursing home facilities and documented a negative impact of segregation on racial minorities and facility-level quality outcomes. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The measurement of racial segregation among nursing homes is heterogeneous. While there are limitations to each methodology, this review can be used as a reference when trying to determine the best approach to measure racial segregation in future studies. Moreover, racial segregation among nursing homes remains a problem and should be further evaluated.