This is a pretty broad question but you might start with a basic "multicultural competence" framework.  Sue & Sue have defined this from a psychotherapeutic intervention perspective but much of it could apply to physical health as well.  This is  a pretty exhaustive body of literature so I'm not citing a specific article but reading/scanning pubmed/psycinfo for some of their work might be a good starting point.

Then specific to LGB individuals, the minority stress model has been proposed by Meyer (2003) and adapted to Trans* individuals by Hendricks (2012) and these are often useful in conceptualizing why LGBT individuals experience some negative health outcomes.  This can be useful in helping identify stigma or other barriers present in any current or proposed interventions.  I would emphasize that T is a distinct population here and these individuals may experience additional sensitivity to genital exams and, thus, may benefit from additional or different protocols which are targeted to reduce dysphoria and support expressed gender.  Intersex/differences of sex development populations are not included in your LGBT acronym but obviously also warrant a distinct approach.

Finally, specific to medical providers working with LGBT individuals, Hinchliff et al. (2005) and Sequeira et al (2012) provide us some data on practitioner's perspectives and training on these issues.  The Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) offer some pretty good basic guidelines on creating welcoming environments so they can be another great resource!

Excuse my ignorance but what does LGBT stand for?

In addition the Gay Affirmative Therapy movement is something that helps any clinican adjust interventions and theories to a more sensitive and affirmative approach (more effective) to working with LGBT people. I would suggest Kort's "Gay Affirmative Therapy for the Straight Clinician" (2009) - excellent book and resource. Or there are several other books available on Amazon, just search for gay affirmative therapy. 

Samar, LGBT stands for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender.  However, that is a very large umbrella term and by no means does it fully capture the experience of all people grouped in that category. Similarly, there are many people who may not be considered "LGBT" or would not themselves identify as "LGBT" but, for research or intervention purposes, might still be included.  This is also a very western view on sexuality and gender and, of course, culture plays a large role in people's perceptions of what this term means or whether this way of conceptualizing sexuality is even meaningful.  Hope that helps.

Matthew and Christopher thanks a lot for your feedback. I will certainly take a look at the resources that you recommended. 

Matthew, I conducted two systematic reviews on testicular cancer and a major gap in the literature was found to be the under-representation of minority groups especially the GBT community (exc. the L). Apparently LGBT will no longer be used and will be replaced with LGBTQIA (Gay Bisexual Transsexual Queer/questioning Intersexual Asexual/allies) which is a broader term that is starting to appear in the literature. 

Thanks again for the feedback and sorry for my late response.

Mohamad

god luck Mohamad. Sorry this toic is out of my league!

Thank you Dr. Noureddine. It is a new topic for me as well but I like new challenges. 

As Matthex said: "culture plays a large role in people's perceptions" A good point of view of the western sexuality and gender is in the LGBT cinema. A good example is  LesGaiCineMad 2015  in http://www.lesgaicinemad.com/

Seems am looking at this from a different perspective. I have being exploring portrayal of different characters in the media and would seek your opinion on the portrayal of LGBT. How can an advertisement/awareness targeted towards LGBT be presented? What image will you use to identifying with LGBT? A rainbow perhaps.

Dear Emmanuel

From a health research perspective there are not guidelines with regard to portrayal of LGBT individuals. But I believe that the rainbow flag is widely used and accepted in the media as a representation of the LGBT population. 

Good luck 

Dear Mohammad,

Thanks for your email. It is true the rainbow is well accepted. Good luck with your research as well.

Dear Mohamad,

if you are interested in LGBT sensitive medical education, it could be helpful to look in to AAMC's medical education guidelines: https://www.aamc.org/newsroom/newsreleases/414490/11182014.html. Also check out their Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Sex Development Project. Good luck! 

Very helpful. Thanks a million! 

I would reach out to the folks at: http://www.cancer-network.org, they have been working in this arena for a long time .

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304462331_Topical_Issues_on_Equality_before_the_Law_for_Intersex_and_Transgender_Persons

Article Topical Issues on Equality before the Law for Intersex and T...

Thank you for the article George, very interesting read!

M.

Just to play devil's advocate for a moment - does this mean that existing intervention material is LGBT insensitive? I thought illnesses, unlike people, didn't care if you were gay or straight, rich or poor, black or white. I am definitely not intending to start a fight, just interested in the failings of the existing material in this context.

In response to Neil's question, the issue is that medical interventions are never 'neutral'; there are always assumptions made, and these assumptions often do not pay attention to the realities of life for many LGBTIQ people (e.g., assumptions with prostate cancer regarding one's sex life post-surgery; assumptions re: family support networks etc). My colleague Professor Gary Dowsett has done some great work on prostate cancer & gay men; you may find some of his work useful, Mohamad. http://www.latrobe.edu.au/she/staff/profile?uname=gwdowsett

I agree with Gillian, unfortunately, many interventions aren't LGBTIQ sensitive. This is based on evidence from a study that I have been working on over the past two years whereby a lot of gay men felt excluded from preexisting cancer awareness campaigns. Also, evidence suggests that gay men are twice more likely to report a cancer diagnosis than men who self-identify as heterosexual.  

This isn't only the case for gay men, as black men also felt excluded from cancer awareness ads. Add to it, prostate cancer risk is higher in African Americans in comparison to Caucasians. 

What I was trying to ask in this discussion wasn't an LGBTIQ exclusive framework, but a framework that is inclusive of men with different sexual orientations.

Gillian, thank you for the link, I have read some of Prof Dowsett's work and looking forward to reading more!

M.