Influence of sexual orientation on diabetes management in US adults with diabetes

Looking at Diabetes-Related Distress through a New Lens: The Socio-Ecological Health Model

Diabetes-related distress (DRD) is defined as an emotional state experienced by people with diabetes (PWD) who are worried about their disease management, the emotional burden from the condition, and/or potential difficulties accessing care or support. The psychosocial aspect of diabetes management is a factor that directly influences patients’ well-being as well as the chronic management of the condition yet is not a primary clinical problem being addressed within the healthcare setting. This review advocates for a re-evaluation and subsequent adjustment of the current DRD screening methodology by implementing the five primary components (Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, Organizational, Community, and Public Policy) of the Socio-Ecological Model of Health (SEMH), bridging the gaps from a public-health perspective. We searched two electronic databases for studies published in the United States from 1995 to 2020 reporting the effects of social determinants of health (SDOH) on DRD. Articles that contained at least one of the five elements of the SEMH and focused on adults aged 18 years or older were included. SDOH, which include circumstances where individuals grow, work, and age, are highly influenced by external factors, such as the distribution of wealth, power, and resources. Current DRD screening tools lack the capacity to account for all major components of SDOH in a comprehensive manner. By applying the SEMH as a theory-based framework, a novel DRD screening tool addressing sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background should be implemented to better improve diabetes management outcomes. By exploring the relationships between each level of the SEMH and DRD, healthcare professionals will be better equipped to recognize potential stress-inducing factors for individuals managing diabetes. Further efforts should be invested with the goal of developing a novel screening tool founded on the all-encompassing SEMH in order to perpetuate a more comprehensive diabetes treatment plan to address barriers within the SDOH framework.

Assessing widening disparities in HbA1c and systolic blood pressure retesting during the COVID-19 pandemic in an LGBTQ+-focused federally qualified health center in Chicago: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records

INTRODUCTION

To assess disparities in retesting for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) among people with diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HTN), respectively, we analyzed medical records from a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer-specialized federally qualified health center with multiple sites in Chicago.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We identified people with DM seen in 2018 and 2019 then assessed if individuals had HbA1c retested the following year (2019 and 2020). We repeated this using SBP for people with HTN. Rates of retesting were compared across gender, sexual orientation, and race and ethnicity and across the 2 years for each categorization with adjustment for socioeconomic indicators.

RESULTS

Retesting rates declined from 2019 to 2020 for both HbA1c and SBP overall and across all groups. Cisgender women and transgender men with DM (vs cisgender men) and straight people (vs gay men) had significantly lower odds of HbA1c retesting for both years. There was evidence of widening of HbA1c retesting disparities in 2020 between gay men and other orientations. Cisgender women, straight people, and black people (vs white) with HTN had significantly lower odds of SBP retesting for both years. There was evidence of narrowing in the retesting gap between black and white people with HTN, but this was due to disproportionate increase in no retesting in white people rather than a decline in no retesting among black people with HTN.

CONCLUSIONS

Disparities in DM and HTN care according to gender, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation persisted during the pandemic with significant widening according to sexual orientation.

Sexual Orientation and Functional Limitations: Cross-sectional Analyses From the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association between sexual orientation and functional limitations in a large representative sample of the English population.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

SETTING

Data were from the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 7403 adults aged 16-95 years (51.4% female; mean age, 46.3±18.6y) were included in the present study.

INTERVENTIONS

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sexual orientation was assessed using 2 items adapted from the Kinsey scale and was dichotomized into heterosexual and sexual minority orientation. Functional limitations were assessed using 7 activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL). Functional limitations were defined as at least 1 difficulty in 1 of 7 ADL and IADL. Adjusted logistic regression analyses were conducted to investigate the association between sexual orientation (independent variable) and functional limitations (dependent variable).

RESULTS

The level of sexual minority orientation and prevalence of functional limitations in the sample was 7.1% and 32.9%, respectively. After adjusting for several potential confounders, sexual minority orientation was positively and significantly associated with functional limitations (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.95; reference group: heterosexual orientation).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the findings of this study, interventions aiming to prevent against and/or manage/reduce functional limitations in sexual minorities are needed. More research is also warranted to better understand mediators (eg, obesity, cognitive complaints, psychiatric disorders) involved in the sexual orientation-functional limitation relationship.

The Annual Examination for Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Patients

The annual examination is a comprehensive evaluation of patients in which all aspects of health and well-being are considered, including proper screening, appropriate preventive care, and recommendations and resources for healthy living. Clinicians commonly avoid certain topics with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) patients because they may be unprepared to address their health needs. Therefore, clinicians should learn how to conduct an LGBTQ-friendly annual examination in order to provide high-quality care. This article focuses on both the general and unique health needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer patients; care for transgender and gender-diverse patients is considered elsewhere.