Barriers in care pathways and unmet mental health needs in LGBTIQ + communities

Mixed-Methods Examination of Adolescent-Reported Barriers to Accessing Mental Health Services

PURPOSE

Many adolescents struggle to access the mental healthcare they need. To increase access to mental health services, we must have a clear understanding of the barriers adolescents face from their own perspectives. This online mixed-methods study aimed to enhance understanding of access barriers by centering the perspectives of diverse adolescents who had recently tried and failed to access mental health support.

METHODS

In this convergent parallel mixed-methods study, adolescents responded to a preintervention, open-ended question about barriers they have faced to accessing mental health services when they needed them and shared information about their background and depressive symptoms. Barriers were assessed using inductive, conventional content analysis. Quantitative analyses examined barrier differences across sociodemographic groups.

RESULTS

All adolescents (aged 11-17 years, 50% racially minoritized youth, 15% gender diverse youth, 64% LGBTQ + youth; 78% with clinically elevated depressive symptoms) reported at least one barrier to accessing mental health support, and 20% reported multiple barriers. Content analysis revealed 13 barrier categories, with parent-related barriers (three different categories) accounting for 32% of all barriers. The most common barrier categories related to personal and financial constraints. Asian adolescents, adolescents who were aged 17 years or more, and adolescents who reported uncertainty of their gender identity endorsed the numerically highest mean number of barriers to accessing mental health support.

DISCUSSION

High-symptom adolescents reported myriad barriers to accessing mental health support, with 32% of all barriers related to parents.

Preliminary Psychometric Evaluation of Novel Measures of Therapist Practice Related to LGBTQ+ Clients

BACKGROUND

Culturally competent and equitable mental healthcare for LGBTQ+ people is critical for addressing mental health inequities for this population. Tools to assess therapists' practice with LGBTQ+ clients are needed for research and clinical efforts related to mental healthcare equity goals.

METHODS

We conducted a preliminary assessment of the reliability and validity of a novel 28-item self-report measure assessing therapist practice with LGBTQ+ clients. We examined the construct validity using factor analyses, the convergent and criterion validity using intercorrelations with LGBTQ-affirming knowledge, self-efficacy, and attitudes, and the internal consistency using Cronbach alpha.

RESULTS

Our overall total LGBTQ+ practice measure demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.91) and was strongly associated with LGBTQ+ knowledge (rho = 0.377), self-efficacy (rho = 0.633), and LGBTQ+ attitudes (rho = 0.305). We also identified two subscales: "Commitment to Continued Learning" and "Affirmative Practices", which demonstrated similarly strong internal consistency and tests of validity.

CONCLUSIONS

Our novel measure of overall LGBTQ+ practice, including two subscales, demonstrated strong reliability and validity. These findings have important implications for practice and research in mental healthcare for LGBTQ+ clients. Future research exploring these measures in relationship to mental healthcare outcomes is recommended.

Characteristics of Outpatient and Residential Substance Use Disorder Treatment Facilities with a Tailored LGBT Program

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals have a high prevalence of substance use disorders (SUDs) and experience unique barriers to treatment. Little is known about the characteristics of SUD treatment facilities providing LGBT-tailored programs at the outpatient and residential levels of care. The purpose of this study is to examine the availability of LGBT-tailored programs in outpatient and residential SUD treatment facilities. Using the National Survey of Substance Abuse Treatment Services 2020, we conducted logistic regression to examine facility characteristics, including ownership, pay assistance, region, outreach, and telehealth services, associated with having an LGBT-tailored program among SUD treatment facilities. Outpatient facilities that were for-profit, had pay assistance, had community outreach services, and provided telemedicine/telehealth were more likely to have an LGBT-tailored program. Those that were government-owned, in the Midwest, and that accepted Medicaid were less likely to have an LGBT-tailored program. Residential facilities that were in the West, for-profit, and had community outreach services were more likely to have an LGBT-tailored program. This study offers a national examination of the availability of LGBT-tailored programs in SUD treatment facilities. Differences in availability based on ownership, region, pay assistance, and outreach highlight potential gaps in treatment availability.

A multicomponent digital intervention to promote help-seeking for mental health problems and suicide in sexual and gender diverse young adults: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

LGBTQ+ community's higher susceptibility to worse mental health outcomes and more help-seeking barriers compared to the cis-heterosexual population. Despite the LGBTQ+ population facing higher mental health risks, there has been a dearth of research focusing on developing tailored interventions targeting them. This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a digital multicomponent intervention in promoting help-seeking for mental health issues in LGBTQ+ young adults.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We recruited LGBTQ+ young adults aged between 18 and 29 who scored moderate or above on at least 1 dimension of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 and did not have help-seeking experiences in the past 12 months. Participants (n = 144) were stratified by gender assigned at birth (male/female) and randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to the intervention or active control parallel condition by generating a random number table, so they were blinded to the intervention condition. All participants received online psychoeducational videos, online facilitator-led group discussions, and electronic brochures in December 2021 and January 2022, with the final follow-up in April 2022. The contents of the video, discussion, and brochure are help-seeking for the intervention group and general mental health knowledge for the control group. The primary outcomes were help-seeking intentions for emotional problems and suicidal ideation and attitudes toward seeking help from mental health professionals at the 1-month follow-up. The analysis was performed by including all participants based on their randomized group regardless of adherence to the protocol. A linear mixed model (LMM) was used for analysis. All models were adjusted for baseline scores. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2100053248. A total of 137 (95.1%) participants completed a 3-month follow-up, and 4 participants from the intervention condition and 3 from the control condition did not complete the final survey. Compared with the control group (n = 72), a significant improvement was found in help-seeking intentions for suicidal ideation in the intervention group (n = 70) at post-discussion (mean difference = 0.22, 95% CI [0.09, 0.36], p = 0.005), 1-month (mean difference = 0.19, 95% CI [0.06, 0.33], p = 0.018), and 3-month follow-ups (mean difference = 0.25, 95% CI [0.11, 0.38], p = 0.001). There was also a significant improvement in the intervention condition on the help-seeking intention for emotional problems at 1-month (mean difference = 0.17, 95% CI [0.05, 0.28], p = 0.013) and 3-month follow-ups (mean difference = 0.16, 95% CI [0.04, 0.27], p = 0.022) compared with the control group. Participants' depression and anxiety literacy and help-seeking encouragement related knowledge in intervention conditions showed significant improvements. There were no significant improvements in actual help-seeking behaviors, self-stigma toward seeking professional assistance, depression, and anxiety symptoms. No adverse events or side effects were observed. However, the follow-up time point was limited to 3 months which might not be long enough for drastic mindset and behavioral changes in help-seeking to occur.

CONCLUSIONS

The current intervention was an effective approach in promoting help-seeking intentions, mental health literacy, and help-seeking encouragement-related knowledge. Its brief yet integrated intervention format could also be utilized in treating other imminent concerns confronted by LGBTQ+ young adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chictr.org.cn, ChiCTR2100053248.

Experience of LGBTQIA2S+ populations with gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic: protocol for a mixed-methods study

INTRODUCTION

Research undertaken since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic has provided us information about the impact of the pandemic on the gambling habits of the general population. However, very little is known about certain subgroups at increased risk of developing gambling disorder, such as the LGBTQIA2S+ population. The purpose of this study is to describe the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on gambling behaviours among LGBTQIA2S+ individuals. In addition, we want to understand the experiences of the LGBTQIA2S+ population with gambling disorder and identify interventions that LGBTQIA2S+ people have found to be effective in addressing problem gambling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study has a sequential explanatory mixed-method design in two phases over 2 years. The first phase is a correlational study. We will conduct a cross-sectional survey using a stratified random sampling among Canadian residents who are 18 years of age or older, self-identify as sexually and gender-diverse (ie, LGBTQIA2S+) and have gambled at least once in the previous 12 months. This survey will be administered online via a web panel (n=1500). The second phase is a qualitative study. Semistructured interviews will be conducted with LGBTQIA2S+ people with problematic gambling (n=30).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This research project has been ethically and scientifically approved by the Research Ethics Committee and by the CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS scientific evaluation committee on 3 March 2022 (reference number: 2022-4633-LGBTQ-JHA). Electronic and/or written informed consent, depending on the data collection format (online survey and online or in-person interviews), will be obtained from each participant. A copy of the consent form and contact information will be delivered to each participant.

Disparities in the unmet mental health needs between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ populations during COVID-19 in the United States from 21 July 2021 to 9 May 2022

Background

Evidence highlighted the likelihood of unmet mental health needs (UMHNs) among LGBTQ+ than non-LGBTQ+ populations during COVID-19. However, there lacks evidence to accurately answer to what extent the gap was in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ populations. We aim to evaluate the difference in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ during COVID-19.

Methods

Cross-sectional data from Household Pulse Survey between 21 July 2021 and 9 May 2022 were analyzed. LGBTQ+ was defined based on self-reported sex at birth, gender, and sexual orientation identity. UMHN was assessed by a self-reported question. Multivariable logistic regressions generated adjusted odds ratios (AODs) of UMHN, both on overall and subgroups, controlling for a variety of socio-demographic and economic-affordability confounders.

Findings

81267 LGBTQ+ and 722638 non-LGBTQ+ were studied. The difference in UMHN between LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ (as reference) varied from 4.9% (95% CI 1.2-8.7%) in Hawaii to 16.0% (95% CI 12.2-19.7%) in Utah. In multivariable models, compared with non-LGBTQ+ populations, LGBTQ+ had a higher likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 2.27, 95% CI 2.18-2.39), with the highest likelihood identified in transgender (AOR = 3.63, 95% CI 2.97-4.39); compared with LGBTQ+ aged 65+, LGBTQ+ aged 18-25 had a higher likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI 1.03-1.75); compared with White LGBTQ+ populations, Black and Hispanic LGBTQ+ had a lower likelihood to report UMHN (AOR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.63-0.82; AOR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97, respectively).

Interpretation

During the COVID-19, LGBTQ+ had a substantial additional risk of UMHN than non-LGBTQ+. Disparities among age groups, subtypes of LGBTQ+, and geographic variance were also identified.