Differences in Caregiving Outcomes and Experiences by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity

Material, Psychological, and Behavioral Financial Hardship Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Cancer Survivors in the United States

PURPOSE

Driven by anti-LGBTQ+ stigma, emerging literature suggests that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) cancer survivors experience financial hardship (FH) more frequently than heterosexual survivors. However, few studies have used nationally representative samples to estimate this inequity.

METHODS

National Health Interview Survey data from 2019 to 2022 were pooled and weighted. Outcomes included material, psychological, and behavioral FH. The behavioral domain was further broken down into subdomains including medical care, prescription medications, and mental health care. Multivariable logit models controlling for a variety of factors were used to generate LGB and heterosexual predicted probabilities and differential effects for each FH outcome. Stratified estimates were generated by sex and age groups.

RESULTS

A total of N = 374 LGB and N = 12,757 heterosexual cancer survivors were included in this analysis. In adjusted analyses, LGB cancer survivors had significantly higher material (19%, 95% CI, 15 to 24 v 12%, 95% CI, 11 to 13; P = .004), psychological (44%, 95% CI, 38 to 51 v 37%, 95% CI, 36 to 38; P = .035), and behavioral (23%, 95% CI, 18 to 28 v 13%, 95% CI, 13 to 14; P < .0001) FH than heterosexual survivors. LGB cancer survivors also had higher medical behavioral (11%, 95% CI, 7 to 15 v 7%, 95% CI, 6 to 7; P = .030), prescription medication behavioral (14%, 95% CI, 10 to 19 v 10%, 95% CI, 9 to 10; P = .032), and mental health behavioral (9%, 95% CI, 6 to 13 v 3%, 95% CI, 3 to 4; P < .0001) FH than heterosexual survivors. Stratified estimates revealed young LGB cancer survivors had the highest probability of each outcome (material: 31%, 95% CI, 23 to 40; psychological: 58%, 95% CI, 50 to 66; behavioral: 45%, 95% CI, 36 to 53).

CONCLUSION

In this nationally representative analysis, LGB cancer survivors experience substantial inequities in all FH outcomes. It is crucial that future FH interventional work should prioritize populations at the highest risk of FH, such as LGB cancer survivors.

Satisfaction with care, general health, and mental health among sexual and gender minority cancer survivors: Results of the OUT National Cancer Survey

BACKGROUND

Few studies have attempted to characterize the cancer care experiences and outcomes of sexual and gender minority (SGM) patients with cancer, despite indications that this population experiences disparities across the cancer continuum. The current study used descriptive and exploratory methods to assess factors related to SGM cancer patients' satisfaction with cancer care and self-reported physical and mental health.

METHODS

The authors designed a cross-sectional self-report online survey and recruited 3750 SGM cancer patient participants (mixed cancers; 85.6% White; 57% gay, 24% lesbian, 6.7% bisexual, and 6.2% transgender/gender nonbinary) using social media posts, partner organizations, and paid advertisements. They analyzed data using descriptive approaches and exploratory multivariate logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Overall, 70.6% of participants reported feeling satisfied with the cancer care they received, 70% rated their physical health as very good or excellent, and 46% reported experiencing less than 5 days of poor mental health in the last month. In models including all participants, complete cases, and Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), satisfaction with care was consistently associated with receiving treatment in an SGM welcoming environment. Physical health was consistently associated with having strong social support after cancer. Mental health was consistently associated with feeling safe disclosing SGM identities.

CONCLUSIONS

SGM cancer patients treated in SGM-welcoming environments were over six times more likely to be satisfied with the care they received than those treated in nonwelcoming environments; this and other modifiable factors could be the target of further study and intervention.

A Systematic Literature Review of the Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of LGBTQIA+ Older Adults: Identification of Risk and Protective Health Factors and Development of a Model of Health and Disease

It is important to understand the differential impact of COVID-19 on the health of older lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and people with other sexual orientations and forms of gender expression (LGBTQIA+). The objective of this study is to systematically review the impact of COVID-19 on LGBTQIA+ older adults' health including risk and protective factors. We reviewed a total of 167 records including LGBTQIA+ older adults published since 2019. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and extracted information of 21 full-text records meeting inclusion criteria using COVIDENCE software. The results show that the negative health consequences are exacerbated by personal risk (e.g., perceived homo/transphobia and ageism in LGBTQIA+ communities) and environmental factors (e.g., heterosexism within health services). The negative impact seems to be reduced by personal protective (e.g., resilience, spirituality, and hobbies) and environmental factors (e.g., technology use to increase social participation and social rituals). In conclusion, the health of LGBTQIA+ older adults has been disproportionately affected during the pandemic associated to the latest coronavirus (COVID-19). The experiences of LGBTQIA+ older adults during the pandemic are integrated in a Model of Health and Disease for LGBTQIA+ older adults. Specific strategies to promote health and well-being in this community are provided.

Who Cares? Unpaid Caregiving by Sexual Identity, Gender, and Partnership Status Among U.S. Adults

Recent scholarship indicates that sexual minority adults have higher caregiving rates than heterosexuals and that women are more likely to be caregivers than men. However, little research has addressed how gender and sexuality intersect in shaping caregiving status. This study uses data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System and aggregates a probability-based sample of adults living in 36 U.S. states between 2015 and 2021. We examine who provides care among adult heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual men and women. Results reveal that women are more likely to be caregivers than men, but only among heterosexuals. We find little variation in caregiving by sexuality among women, but bisexual men are more likely than heterosexual men to be caregivers; the latter result appears to be driven by unpartnered, bisexual men. Lastly, we contextualize caregivers' experiences and reveal selected descriptive differences in patterns of care recipient-caregiver relationships across gender and sexual identity groups. Our findings advance understanding of caregiving and changing family ties in an era of population aging and increasing diversity in sexual identities.

The Burden of having to Wonder: Hospice Caregiving Experiences of LGBTQ+ Cancer Family Caregivers

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

LGBTQ+ people are more likely to be caregivers for family and friends with life-limiting illnesses than non-LGBTQ+ people. LGBTQ+ caregivers may also experience stigma, bias, and discrimination, in addition to caregiving stress. Yet few studies have elicited LGBTQ+ family caregivers' perspectives on their end-of-life (EOL) experiences of home hospice.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with LGBTQ+ family caregivers of home hospice patients (N = 20). Following an interpretive descriptive approach, interview data were audio recorded, transcribed, and iteratively coded, and themes were developed and synthesized.

RESULTS

The burden of having to wonder expressed caregivers' uncertainty and concern about whether their negative experiences were common to all EOL caregivers or stemmed from cultural stigma and provider bias. Participants described how invisibility vs. risks of disclosure, anticipatory anxiety, perceived microaggressions, and protective vigilance increased stress and complicated caregiver-provider communication. Navigating EOL universalities vs. minority realities depicted underlying tensions between commonly assumed universalities of EOL caregiving and LGBTQ+-specific experiences. Providers' discomfort, awkward communication, lack of access to culturally competent EOL support resources, and broader structural and cultural discrimination eroded their sense of connectedness and safety. Together, these themes characterized the impact of minority stress at EOL.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Our findings suggest that LGBTQ+ hospice caregivers are at risk for minority stress in addition to more common sources of EOL caregiving pressures and thus have specific support and communication needs. Providers must understand this to deliver effective EOL care for all families.

Inequities Among Cancer Caregivers with Diverse Identities: A Review of the Literature and Future Directions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of older adults with cancer relying on support from caregivers continues to increase. Health disparities in older adults with cancer often extend to their caregivers. This review aims to assess the state of cancer caregiving research in historically underrepresented diverse populations and provide recommendations for future research and policy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Research on caregivers of older adults with cancer from diverse backgrounds has primarily been descriptive. Health disparities for historically underrepresented caregivers (LGBTQ + , BIPOC, rural, young adults, youth) exist across several dimensions (e.g., financial, mental, and physical health, and access to caregiver support). Few published studies have closely examined the unique experiences of these caregivers nor provided culturally appropriate tailored interventions. Health equity research within caregiving populations is in its infancy. Priorities for future work should focus on identifying modifiable targets for intervention, changing systems-level processes in acknowledging and supporting caregivers, and creating policies that reduce financial inequities of caregiving.

Mobile Health Interventions to Support Caregivers of Older Adults: An Equity-Focused Systematic Review

Background

Informal caregivers, hereafter referred to as caregivers, provide support to older adults so that they can age safely at home. The decision to become a caregiver can be influenced by individual factors, such as personal choice, or societal factors such as social determinants of health, including household income, employment status, and culture-specific gender roles. Over time, caregivers’ health can be negatively affected by their caregiving roles. Although programs exist to support caregivers, the availability and appropriateness of services do not match caregivers’ expressed needs. Research suggests that supportive interventions offered through mobile health (mHealth) technologies have the potential to increase caregivers’ access to supportive services. However, a knowledge gap remains regarding the extent to which social determinants of health are considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions intended to support the caregivers of older adults.

Objective

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to determine how health equity is considered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of mHealth interventions for caregivers of older adults using Cochrane Equity’s PROGRESS-Plus (place of residence, race, ethnicity, culture, language, occupation, gender, religion, education, social capital, socioeconomic status–plus age, disability, and sexual orientation) framework and synthesize evidence of the impacts of the identified caregiver-focused mHealth interventions.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted using 5 databases. Articles published between January 2010 and June 2021 were included if they evaluated or explored the impact of mHealth interventions on the health and well-being of informal caregivers of older adults. mHealth interventions were defined as supportive services, for example, education, that caregivers of older adults accessed via mobile or wireless devices.

Results

In total, 28 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. The interventions evaluated sought to connect caregivers with services, facilitate caregiving, and promote caregivers’ health and well-being. The PROGRESS-Plus framework factors were mainly considered in the results, discussion, and limitations sections of the included studies. Some PROGRESS-Plus factors such as sexual orientation, religion, and occupation, received little to no consideration across any phase of the intervention design, implementation, or evaluation. Overall, the findings of this review suggest that mHealth interventions were positively received by study participants. Such interventions have the potential to reduce caregiver burden and positively affect caregivers’ physical and mental health while supporting them as caregivers. The study findings highlight the importance of making support available to help facilitate caregivers’ use of mHealth interventions, as well as in the use of appropriate language and text.

Conclusions

The successful uptake and spread of mHealth interventions to support caregivers of older adults will depend on creating opportunities for the inclusive involvement of a broad range of stakeholders at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation.

Positive and Negative Impacts of Caring among Adolescents Caring for Grandparents. Results from an Online Survey in Six European Countries and Implications for Future Research, Policy and Practice

Although up to 8% of European youngsters carry out high-intensity care for a family member, adolescent young carers (AYCs), especially those caring for their grandparents (GrPs), remain an under-researched group. This study aimed at addressing the current knowledge gap by carrying out an online survey in Italy, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The analysis included a final sample of 817 AYCs aged 15-17 years old. AYCs of grandparents (GrPs) were compared to AYCs of other care recipients (OCRs), in order to identify any difference in positive and negative caregiving outcomes and exposure factors between the two groups. Linear or logistic regression models were built, and multivariate analyses were repeated, including a fixed effect on the country variable. AYCs of GrPs experienced more positive caregiving outcomes than AYCs of OCRs across all six countries. Being female or non-binary, and having a migration background, were associated with more negative outcomes, regardless of the relationship with the care recipient. Further research on intergenerational caregiving outcomes is recommended for shaping measures and policies, which preserve the intergenerational emotional bonds, whilst protecting AYCs from inappropriate responsibilities, undermining their mental health and well-being.

Caregiving Status and Health of Heterosexual, Sexual Minority, and Transgender Adults: Results From Select U.S. Regions in the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System 2015 and 2016

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Insufficient research attention has been paid to the diversity of informal caregivers, including sexual and gender minority caregivers. This study examined health effects of caregiving separately from sexual orientation or gender identity status, while stratifying by gender among cisgender adults. We hypothesized that compared with heterosexual cisgender noncaregivers, heterosexual caregivers and lesbian/gay/bisexual (LGB), and transgender (T) noncaregivers would report poorer health outcomes (i.e., self-reported health, and poor mental health days and poor physical health days), and LGBT caregivers would report the worst health outcomes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a secondary data analysis of the 2015 and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 19 U.S. states.

RESULTS

After adjusting for covariates and stratifying by gender among the cisgender sample, heterosexual caregivers, LGB noncaregivers and LGB caregivers had significantly higher odds of self-reported fair or poor health (adjusted odds ratios [aORs] 1.3-2.0 for women and 1.2 for men), poor physical health days (aORs 1.2-2.8 for women and 1.3-2.8 for men), and poor mental health days (aORs 1.4-4.7 for women and 1.5-5.6 for men) compared with heterosexual noncaregivers (reference group). By contrast, transgender caregivers did not have significantly poorer health than cisgender noncaregivers.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

LGB caregivers reported the worst health compared with other groups on multiple measures, signifying they are an at-risk population. These results suggest the necessity to develop LGB appropriate services and programs to prevent poor health in LGB caregivers. Existing policies should also be inclusive of LGBT individuals who are caregivers.

Health, well-being, and social support in older Australian lesbian and gay care-givers

Informal care-givers play an important role in society, and many of the people who provide this care are lesbian women and gay men. Being a care-giver is known to be associated with poorer health and well-being, and lesbian and gay care-givers report experiences of stigma and discrimination in the care-giving context. This study involved a survey of 230 lesbian women and 503 gay men aged 60 years and over living in Australia, of which 218 were care-givers. We compared care-givers to non-caregivers on a range of health and well-being measures, including psychological distress, positive mental health, physical health and social support. While we found no significant differences between these two groups, we further compared care-givers who were caring for an LGBTI person to those who were caring for a non-LGBTI person. Among the lesbian women, care-givers of an LGBTI person reported feeling less supported in their carer role and reported lower levels of social support more generally. They were also lower on positive mental health and physical health indicators. Among the gay men, care-givers of an LGBTI person also reported feeling less supported in their carer role, but there were no differences in reported levels of social support more generally or health and well-being compared to those caring for a non-LGBTI person. Overall, results from this study suggest that older lesbian and gay care-givers may be facing some challenges related to their well-being and feeling supported, especially if they are caring for another LGBTI person.

Focus on the family: A case example of end-of-life care for an older LGBT veteran

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is likely the largest provider of health care for LGBT persons in US. However, histories of homophobia, stigma, discrimination, and past military policies have all had a lasting impact on the health of LGBT veterans. Effects can be seen across healthcare needs, disparities, access, and utilization for or by LGBT veterans. A case from a VA hospice unit is used to illustrate some challenges and opportunities when providing end-of-life care for an older, lesbian veteran. This veteran had been cared for by her wife who was struggling to meet care needs at home. Over time, it became clear that the wife was emotionally and financially dependent on the veteran, and would be facing many psychosocial and financial challenges when the veteran died. However the wife was reticent to accept referrals for help or services due to past negative experiences with social service agencies related to her sexual orientation. The interdisciplinary team collaborated to care for the veteran's medical needs, and the wife's emotional and psychosocial needs, until after the veteran's death. This case highlights many of the unique needs and challenges that may arise in caring for LGBT veterans and their families at end-of-life.