An Integrated Approach to Measuring Sexual Orientation Disparities in Women's Access to Health Services: A National Health Interview Survey Application

Sexual Minority Adults in England Have Greater Odds of Chronic Mental Health Problems: Variation by Sexual Orientation, Age, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status

Purpose: Sexual minority adults report worse mental health than heterosexual peers, although few empirical studies are large enough to measure variation in these disparities by sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES). We investigate chronic mental health problems among sexual minority adults. Methods: Sex-disaggregated logistic regressions examined associations between self-reported chronic mental health problems and sexual orientation, age, ethnicity, and SES in a 2015-2017 dataset from the nationally representative English General Practice Patient Survey data (n = 1,341,339). Results: Bisexual adults, especially young bisexual females, reported the highest rates of chronic mental health problems. Sexual minority females 18-24 years of age had five times the odds of reporting chronic mental health problems of their heterosexual peers, with 32% of sexual minority females 18-24 years of age reporting the outcome. Sexual minority identity was also strongly associated with chronic mental health problems for adults who were White and lived in more affluent areas. Conclusion: The very high odds of chronic mental health problems among bisexual adults, especially younger bisexual females, may reflect simultaneous isolation from sexual minority and heterosexual communities. Elevated odds at younger ages may reflect disproportionate social media use and bullying. It is plausible that those who are subject to minority stress associated with SES and ethnicity may develop resilience strategies that they then apply to sexual minority stress. The results suggest that sexual minority identity is a source of minority stress, even for those who are affluent. Clinicians should be alert to the need to support the specific mental health concerns of their sexual minority patients.

Analysis of Reported Health Care Use by Sexual Orientation Among Youth

IMPORTANCE

In the United States, adolescents who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) face disparities across physical and mental health outcomes compared with non-LGB youth, yet few studies have looked at patterns of health care utilization by sexual orientation.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health care utilization indicators for LGB and non-LGB youth.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed wave 3 data from Healthy Passages, a longitudinal observational study of diverse public school students in Birmingham, Alabama; Houston, Texas; and Los Angeles County, California. Multivariable logistic regression models tested sexual-orientation differences in the past 12-month health care utilization measures, controlling for youth age, gender, race and ethnicity, household education, income, and marital status. Data collection began in 2010 when students were in the 5th grade (mean [SE] age, 11.13 [0.01] years) (wave 1) and continued 2 years later (wave 2, 7th grade) and 5 years later (wave 3, 10th grade). Permission to be contacted was provided for 6663 children, and 5147 (77%) participated in audio computer-assisted self-administered interviews. This study included 4256 youth (640 LGB, 3616 non-LGB) who completed interviews at wave 1 and wave 3 and answered key items used in this analysis. Analyses were completed in June 2021.

EXPOSURES

Sexual orientation (LGB vs non-LGB).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care utilization and communication difficulty with a physician in the past 12 months.

RESULTS

Among 4256 youths included in the study at baseline in 5th grade (wave 1), 2171 (48.9%) were female; 1502 (44.5%) were Hispanic or Latino; 1479 (28.9%) were Black; the mean (SE) age was 11.19 (0.03) years; and 640 (14.5%) were LGB at wave 3. Compared with non-LGB youth, a higher proportion of LGB youth reported not receiving needed medical care in the last 12 months (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.68; 95% CI,1.38-2.05), most commonly for sexually transmitted infections, contraception, and substance use. LGB youth more frequently reported difficulty communicating with their physician (aOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.27-2.30) than non-LGB youth.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study's results found that health care utilization differs by sexual orientation for youth. These findings suggest that clinician training is needed to address the health care needs of LGB youth. Routinely capturing sexual orientation data might enable tracking of health care utilization indicators for LGB youth.

Cancer screening utilization by residence and sexual orientation

PURPOSE

Although few studies have examined screening uptake among sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer), almost none have examined it in the specific context of rural populations. Therefore, our objective was to assess how cancer screening utilization varies by residence and sexual orientation.

METHODS

Publicly available population-level data from the 2014 and 2016 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System were utilized. Study outcomes included recommended recent receipt of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. Independent variables of interest were residence (rural/urban) and sexual orientation (heterosexual/gay or lesbian/bisexual). Weighted proportions and multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess the association between the independent variables and the outcomes, adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and healthcare utilization factors.

RESULTS

Rates for all three cancer screenings were lowest in rural areas and among sexual minority populations (cervical: rural lesbians at 64.8% vs. urban heterosexual at 84.6%; breast: rural lesbians at 66.8% vs. urban heterosexual at 80.0%; colorectal for males: rural bisexuals at 52.4% vs. urban bisexuals at 81.3%; and colorectal for females: rural heterosexuals at 67.2% vs. rural lesbians at 74.4%). In the multivariate analyses for colorectal screening, compared to urban heterosexual males, both rural gay and rural heterosexual males were less likely to receive screening (aOR = 0.45; 95% = 0.24-0.73 and aOR = 0.79; 95% = 0.72-0.87, respectively) as were rural heterosexual females (aOR = 0.87; 95% = 0.80-0.94) compared to urban heterosexual females. For cervical screening, lesbians were less likely to receive screening (aOR = 0.62; 95% = 0.41-0.94) than heterosexuals, and there were no differences for breast screening.

CONCLUSION

We found that rural sexual minorities may experience disparities in cancer screening utilization associated with the compounding barriers of rural residence and sexual minority status, after adjusting for demographic, socioeconomic, and healthcare utilization factors. Further work is needed to identify factors influencing these disparities and how they might be addressed.