Improving alcohol and mental health treatment for lesbian, bisexual and queer women: Identity matters

LGBTQIA+ healthcare content in pre-registration nursing and midwifery curricula: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Nurses and midwives are expected to provide inclusive care for LGBTQIA+ populations. However, there is a paucity of knowledge on how well-prepared nursing and midwifery graduates are for this aspect of their role.

AIM

To explore LGBTQIA+ content in pre-registration nursing and midwifery curricula in Australia.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTINGS

Australian higher education institutions offering 86 pre-registration nursing and midwifery programs.

SAMPLE

Publicly available pre-registration nursing and midwifery course programs in Australia as presented in the online course handbooks of 25 randomly selected educational institutions.

METHODS

A LGBTQIA+ terminology matrix was developed to guide data extraction from subject titles, synopses, and learning outcomes. Explicit terms were those strongly associated with LGBTQIA+. Implicit terms were those indirectly associated with LGBTQIA+. Explicit and implicit LGBTQIA+ terms were analyzed for frequencies. Poisson regression was used to compare counts of LGBTQIA+ terms by course, subject, and university.

RESULTS

Among the 1093 subjects, no subject titles included explicit terms and 6 (0.55 %) titles included implicit LGBTQIA+ terminology. Explicit LGBTQIA+ terminology was identified in 54 (4.9 %) subject synopses and implicit terminology was found in 323 (29.6 %) subject synopses. Explicit LGBTQIA+ terms were identified in 14 (1.3 %) learning outcomes while implicit terms were found in 323 (29.6 %) learning outcomes. Group of Eight universities were more likely to use explicit and implicit LGBTQIA+ terminology than non-Group of Eight universities (p < 0.001; p = 0.035). Undergraduate programs included more LGBTQIA+ terminology than postgraduate programs (p = 0.019; p < 0.001). Core subjects were more likely to include LGBTQIA+ content than elective subjects (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Explicit LGBTQIA+ terminology was minimal indicating limited overall content. The study results alert nursing and midwifery educators to take a targeted approach to teaching and learning with a LGBTQIA+ focus to support future nurses and midwives with quality knowledge and skills and ensure equitable and safe care for LGBTQIA+ people.

Community connection is associated with lower psychological distress for sexual minority women who view community connection positively

We examined factors associated with sexual minority women's evaluations of belonging to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community in Australia, and assessed whether a positive view of community participation impacted levels of psychological distress. 2424 cisgender sexual minority women participated in a national, online, cross-sectional survey of LGBTIQ adult Australians' health and well-being. Multivariable regression analyses were conducted to investigate sociodemographic factors associated with sexual minority women's belonging to the LGBTQ community, feelings towards community connection, and associations between community connection and recent psychological distress. Most sexual minority women (58.9%) reported feeling that they are part of the LGBTQ community, and a majority of the participants felt positive about being connected to this community (68.5%). Participants who were bisexual, non-university educated, and who resided in an outer-suburban location were least likely to evaluate participation in the LGBTQ community positively. Feeling positive about community connection was associated with lower levels of psychological distress. Feeling a part of LGBTQ community was associated with lower psychological distress, but this link appears contingent upon positive feelings about community participation. Sexual minority women's' relationships to the LGBTQ community are often complex, and community connection and participation in and of itself is not a panacea for the negative outcomes associated with sexual minority stressors.

Experiences of and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming substance use services: an exploratory qualitative descriptive study with LGBTQ+ people who use opioids and other drugs

BACKGROUND

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other LGBTQ populations (LGBTQ+; e.g., asexual individuals) have higher rates of substance use (SU) and disorders (SUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. Such disparities can be attributed to minority stress, including stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings. LGBTQ+-affirming SU treatment and related services remain limited. The purpose of this exploratory qualitative descriptive study was to characterize LGBTQ+ people's experiences in SU services and recommendations for LGBTQ+- affirming care.

METHODS

We conducted demographic surveys (characterized using descriptive statistics) and individual qualitative interviews with N = 23 LGBTQ+ people. We employed flexible coding and a thematic analysis approach to describe participants' experiences with stigma, discrimination, and support within SU services at the patient-, staff-, and organizational-level; and participant recommendations for how to make such services LGBTQ+-affirming. We highlighted components of minority stress and mitigators of adverse stress responses throughout our thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Patient-level experiences included bullying, name-calling, sexual harassment, and physical distancing from peers; and support via community-building with LGBTQ+ peers. Staff-level experiences included name-calling, denial of services, misgendering, lack of intervention in peer bullying, and assumptions about participants' sexuality; and support via staff advocacy for LGBTQ+ patients, holistic treatment models, and openly LGBTQ+ staff. Organizational-level experiences included stigma in binary gendered program structures; and support from programs with gender-affirming groups and housing, and in visual cues (e.g., rainbow flags) of affirming care. Stigma and discrimination led to minority stress processes like identity concealment and stress coping responses like SU relapse; support facilitated SU treatment engagement and retention. Recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care included non-discrimination policies, LGBTQ+-specific programming, hiring LGBTQ+ staff, routine staff sensitivity training, and gender-inclusive program structures.

CONCLUSIONS

LGBTQ+ people experience stigma and discrimination within SU services; supportive and affirming care is vital to reducing treatment barriers and promoting positive health outcomes. The current study offers concrete recommendations for how to deliver LGBTQ+-affirming care, which could reduce SU disparities and drug overdose mortality overall.

Experiences of and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming substance use services: A qualitative study with LGBTQ+ people who use opioids and other drugs

Background

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other LGBTQ populations (LGBTQ+; e.g., non-binary individuals) have higher rates of substance use (SU) and disorders (SUD) compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. Such disparities can be attributed to minority stress, including stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings. LGBTQ+-affirming SU treatment and related services remain limited. The purpose of this qualitative study was to characterize LGBTQ + people's experiences in SU services and recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care.

Methods

We conducted demographic surveys (characterized using descriptive statistics) and individual qualitative interviews with N = 23 LGBTQ + people. We employed a flexible coding approach to describe participants' experiences with stigma, discrimination, and support within SU services; and participant recommendations for how to make such services LGBTQ+-affirming at the patient-, staff-, and organizational-level. We highlighted components of minority stress and mitigators of adverse stress responses throughout our thematic analysis.

Results

Patient-level experiences included bullying, name-calling, sexual harassment, and physical distancing from peers; and support via community-building with LGBTQ + peers. Staff-level experiences included name-calling, denial of services, misgendering, lack of intervention in peer bullying, and assumptions about participants' sexuality; and support via staff advocacy for LGBTQ + patients, holistic treatment models, and openly LGBTQ + staff. Organizational-level experiences included stigma in binary gendered program structures; and support from programs with gender-affirming groups and housing, and in visual cues (e.g., rainbow flags) of affirming care. Stigma and discrimination led to minority stress processes like identity concealment and stress coping responses like SU relapse; support facilitated SU treatment engagement and retention. Recommendations for LGBTQ+-affirming care included non-discrimination policies, routine pronoun sharing, LGBTQ+-specific programming, hiring LGBTQ + staff, routine staff sensitivity training, and gender-inclusive program structures.

Conclusions

LGBTQ + people experience stigma and discrimination within SU services; supportive and affirming care is vital to reducing treatment barriers and promoting positive health outcomes. The current study offers concrete recommendations for how to deliver LGBTQ+-affirming care, which could reduce SU disparities and drug overdose mortality overall.

"You say you're inclusive, but can you show us?" The importance of cultural competence when working with sexual minorities in a mental health setting

OBJECTIVES

Sexual minorities experience higher rates of psychological distress than heterosexual people, likely due to minority stress. While rates of help-seeking by sexual minorities are high, sexual minorities report greater dissatisfaction with mental health service providers. This dissatisfaction may result from poor cultural competence practices. Our study sought to determine the importance of service provider cultural competence practices to a community sample of sexual minority people.

METHODS

Participants (n = 274) were sexual minority Australians recruited from affirming Facebook groups, organizations, and research-based organizations. To measure the importance of cultural competence practices, participants completed a modified online version of the Gay Affirming Practices Scale (GAP) and responded to open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Between 80% and 99% of participants endorsed each item on the GAP, indicating the importance of service providers demonstrating an array of culturally affirming practices. No significant associations were found between overall GAP score and age or sexual orientation, though further analyses revealed individual items on the GAP showed associations with age. A structured tabular thematic analysis, of open-ended participant responses, found positive attitudes, knowledge, and affirming practices were the three most important characteristics for service providers seeking to demonstrate culturally competent practices, mirroring the tripartite model (attitudes, knowledge, and skills) of cultural competence.

CONCLUSION

Recommendations for service providers to demonstrate cultural competence include: utilizing affirming practices such as inclusive language, increasing knowledge about sexual minorities, and utilizing education resources such as cultural competence workshops, lived experience stories, and seeking mentorship from service providers with expertise in working with sexual minorities.

Simulating the experience of searching for LGBTQ-specific opioid use disorder treatment in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) populations experience opioid-related disparities compared to heterosexual and cisgender populations. LGBTQ-specific services are needed within opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment settings to minimize treatment barriers; research on the availability and accessibility of such services is limited. The purpose of the current study was to mimic the experience of an LGBTQ-identified individual searching for LGBTQ-specific OUD treatment services, using the SAMHSA National Directory of Drug and Alcohol Abuse Treatment Facilities - 2018 (Treatment Directory).

METHODS

We contacted treatment facilities listed in the Treatment Directory as providing both medications for OUD (MOUD) and "special programs/groups" for LGBTQ clients within states with the top 20 highest national opioid overdose rates. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the outcome of calls; and the overall number of facilities offering LGBTQ-specific services, MOUD, and both LGBTQ-specific services and MOUD in each state by 100,000 state population and in relation to opioid overdose mortality rates (programs-per-death rate).

RESULTS

Of the N = 570 treatment facilities contacted, n = 446 (78.25 %) were reached and answered our questions. Of n = 446 reached (all of which advertised both MOUD and LGBTQ-specific services), n = 366 (82.06 %) reported offering MOUD, n = 125 (28.03 %) reported offering special programs or groups for LGBTQ clients, and n = 107 (23.99 %) reported offering both MOUD and LGBTQ-specific services. Apart from Washington, DC, New Mexico, South Carolina, and West Virginia, which did not have any facilities that reported offering both MOUD and LGBTQ-specific services, Illinois had the lowest, and Michigan had the highest programs-per-death rate. Most of the northeastern states on our list (all but New Hampshire) clustered in the top two quarters of programs-per-death rates, while most of southeastern states (all but North Carolina) clustered in the bottom two quarters of programs-per-death rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The lack of LGBTQ-specific OUD treatment services may lead to missed opportunities for supporting LGBTQ people most in need of treatment; such treatment is especially crucial to prevent overdose mortality and improve the health of LGBTQ populations across the United States, particularly in the southeast.

A systematic review to determine how service provider practises impact effective service provision to lesbian, gay and bisexual consumers in a mental health setting

Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) consumers utilize mental health services at a similar rate to their heterosexual counterparts yet report greater dissatisfaction with service quality. This dissatisfaction may be explained by service provider's microaggressions, stemming from a lack of cultural competence in working with LGB consumers. This systematic review examines how the practises of mental health service providers impacted effective service provision to LGB people in a clinical practice. Five health databases (Scopus, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL) were examined to determine relevant studies for this review. Twenty four qualitative and quantitative studies between 2000 and 2020 examining data related to how service provider practises impacted effective service provision to LGB people were included in the final review. A narrative synthesis, thematic summary approach was employed to account for the multi-method nature of the data. Themes developed in our analysis are organized under the three components of cultural competence, service provider attitudes, knowledge and skills. Provider attitudes ranged from positive to negative towards LGB people and heterosexism were present in several services. Poor service provider knowledge about the issues impacting LGB consumers leads to a weakened therapeutic alliance and service providers often lacked a comprehensive understanding of the issues impacting LGB people. Service providers were seen as more skilful if they were LGB, created a safe space and had completed cultural competence training. Trends within the characteristics (explorative nature, mixed service provider samples, potential for bias) of the 24 studies included in the review are discussed. Based on the results, recommendations are included to ensure services demonstrate cultural competence in working with LGB consumers.

New Australian guidelines for the treatment of alcohol problems: an overview of recommendations

OF RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 2: Screening and assessment for unhealthy alcohol use Screening Screening for unhealthy alcohol use and appropriate interventions should be implemented in general practice (Level A), hospitals (Level B), emergency departments and community health and welfare settings (Level C). Quantity-frequency measures can detect consumption that exceeds levels in the current Australian guidelines (Level B). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) is the most effective screening tool and is recommended for use in primary care and hospital settings. For screening in the general community, the AUDIT-C is a suitable alternative (Level A). Indirect biological markers should be used as an adjunct to screening (Level A), and direct measures of alcohol in breath and/or blood can be useful markers of recent use (Level B). Assessment Assessment should include evaluation of alcohol use and its effects, physical examination, clinical investigations and collateral history taking (Level C). Assessment for alcohol-related physical problems, mental health problems and social support should be undertaken routinely (GPP). Where there are concerns regarding the safety of the patient or others, specialist consultation is recommended (Level C). Assessment should lead to a clear, mutually acceptable treatment plan which specifies interventions to meet the patient's needs (Level D). Sustained abstinence is the optimal outcome for most patients with alcohol dependence (Level C). Chapter 3: Caring for and managing patients with alcohol problems: interventions, treatments, relapse prevention, aftercare, and long term follow-up Brief interventions Brief motivational interviewing interventions are more effective than no treatment for people who consume alcohol at risky levels (Level A). Their effectiveness compared with standard care or alternative psychosocial interventions varies by treatment setting. They are most effective in primary care settings (Level A). Psychosocial interventions Cognitive behaviour therapy should be a first-line psychosocial intervention for alcohol dependence. Its clinical benefit is enhanced when it is combined with pharmacotherapy for alcohol dependence or an additional psychosocial intervention (eg, motivational interviewing) (Level A). Motivational interviewing is effective in the short term and in patients with less severe alcohol dependence (Level A). Residential rehabilitation may be of benefit to patients who have moderate-to-severe alcohol dependence and require a structured residential treatment setting (Level D). Alcohol withdrawal management Most cases of withdrawal can be managed in an ambulatory setting with appropriate support (Level B). Tapering diazepam regimens (Level A) with daily staged supply from a pharmacy or clinic are recommended (GPP). Pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence Acamprosate is recommended to help maintain abstinence from alcohol (Level A). Naltrexone is recommended for prevention of relapse to heavy drinking (Level A). Disulfiram is only recommended in close supervision settings where patients are motivated for abstinence (Level A). Some evidence for off-label therapies baclofen and topiramate exists, but their side effect profiles are complex and neither should be a first-line medication (Level B). Peer support programs Peer-led support programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous and SMART Recovery are effective at maintaining abstinence or reductions in drinking (Level A). Relapse prevention, aftercare and long-term follow-up Return to problematic drinking is common and aftercare should focus on addressing factors that contribute to relapse (GPP). A harm-minimisation approach should be considered for patients who are unable to reduce their drinking (GPP). Chapter 4: Providing appropriate treatment and care to people with alcohol problems: a summary for key specific populations Gender-specific issues Screen women and men for domestic abuse (Level C). Consider child protection assessments for caregivers with alcohol use disorder (GPP). Explore contraceptive options with women of reproductive age who regularly consume alcohol (Level B). Pregnant and breastfeeding women Advise pregnant and breastfeeding women that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption (Level B). Pregnant women who are alcohol dependent should be admitted to hospital for treatment in an appropriate maternity unit that has an addiction specialist (GPP). Young people Perform a comprehensive HEEADSSS assessment for young people with alcohol problems (Level B). Treatment should focus on tangible benefits of reducing drinking through psychotherapy and engagement of family and peer networks (Level B). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples Collaborate with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander health workers, organisations and communities, and seek guidance on patient engagement approaches (GPP). Use validated screening tools and consider integrated mainstream and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander-specific approaches to care (Level B). Culturally and linguistically diverse groups Use an appropriate method, such as the "teach-back" technique, to assess the need for language and health literacy support (Level C). Engage with culture-specific agencies as this can improve treatment access and success (Level C). Sexually diverse and gender diverse populations Be mindful that sexually diverse and gender diverse populations experience lower levels of satisfaction, connection and treatment completion (Level C). Seek to incorporate LGBTQ-specific treatment and agencies (Level C). Older people All new patients aged over 50 years should be screened for harmful alcohol use (Level D). Consider alcohol as a possible cause for older patients presenting with unexplained physical or psychological symptoms (Level D). Consider shorter acting benzodiazepines for withdrawal management (Level D). Cognitive impairment Cognitive impairment may impair engagement with treatment (Level A). Perform cognitive screening for patients who have alcohol problems and refer them for neuropsychological assessment if significant impairment is suspected (Level A).

SUMMARY OF KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND LEVELS OF EVIDENCE

Chapter 5: Understanding and managing comorbidities for people with alcohol problems: polydrug use and dependence, co-occurring mental disorders, and physical comorbidities Polydrug use and dependence Active alcohol use disorder, including dependence, significantly increases the risk of overdose associated with the administration of opioid drugs. Specialist advice is recommended before treatment of people dependent on both alcohol and opioid drugs (GPP). Older patients requiring management of alcohol withdrawal should have their use of pharmaceutical medications reviewed, given the prevalence of polypharmacy in this age group (GPP). Smoking cessation can be undertaken in patients with alcohol dependence and/or polydrug use problems; some evidence suggests varenicline may help support reduction of both tobacco and alcohol consumption (Level C). Co-occurring mental disorders More intensive interventions are needed for people with comorbid conditions, as this population tends to have more severe problems and carries a worse prognosis than those with single pathology (GPP). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10 or K6) is recommended for screening for comorbid mental disorders in people presenting for alcohol use disorders (Level A). People with alcohol use disorder and comorbid mental disorders should be offered treatment for both disorders; care should be taken to coordinate intervention (Level C). Physical comorbidities Patients should be advised that alcohol use has no beneficial health effects. There is no clear risk-free threshold for alcohol intake. The safe dose for alcohol intake is dependent on many factors such as underlying liver disease, comorbidities, age and sex (Level A). In patients with alcohol use disorder, early recognition of the risk for liver cirrhosis is critical. Patients with cirrhosis should abstain from alcohol and should be offered referral to a hepatologist for liver disease management and to an addiction physician for management of alcohol use disorder (Level A). Alcohol abstinence reduces the risk of cancer and improves outcomes after a diagnosis of cancer (Level A).

Disparities in substance use disorder treatment use and perceived need by sexual identity and gender among adults in the United States

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorder (SUD) treatment use is low in the United States. We assessed differences in treatment use and perceived need by sexual identity (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, heterosexual) and gender among adults with a past-year SUD.

METHODS

We pooled data from the 2015-2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health for adults (18+) who met past-year DSM-IV SUD criteria and self-reported sexual identity (n = 21,926). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions estimated odds of past-year: 1) any SUD treatment; 2) specialty SUD treatment; 3) perceived SUD treatment need by sexual identity, stratified by gender and adjusted for socio-demographics.

RESULTS

Any past-year SUD treatment use was low among adult men (heterosexual [10.4 %], gay [15.5 %], and bisexual [7.1 %]) and women (heterosexual [9.9 %], gay/lesbian [11.9 %], and bisexual [13.2 %]). Patterns were similar for specialty SUD treatment and perceived treatment need. Adjusted odds of any SUD treatment use were higher among gay men (aOR = 1.65 [95 % Confidence Interval 1.10-2.46]) and bisexual women (aOR = 1.31 [1.01-1.69]) than their heterosexual peers. Compared to their heterosexual counterparts, adjusted odds of perceived SUD treatment need were higher among bisexual women (aOR = 1.65 [1.22-2.25]), gay men (aOR = 1.76 [1.09-2.84]), and bisexual men (aOR = 2.39 [1.35-4.24]).

CONCLUSIONS

Most adults with SUD did not receive treatment. Gay men and bisexual women were more likely to receive treatment and reported higher perceived SUD treatment need than heterosexual peers. Facilitating treatment access and engagement is needed to reduce unmet needs among marginalized people who perceive SUD treatment need.

Gender Differences in Use of Alcohol Treatment Services and Reasons for Nonuse in a National Sample

BACKGROUND

The majority of adults with alcohol use disorders do not obtain help, and women are less likely to utilize alcohol services than men. We sought to quantify gender differences in alcohol services utilization, overall and by type, using national longitudinal data and to explore potential gender differences in perceived need for help and reasons for not seeking help.

METHODS

We analyzed data from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions from White, African American, and Hispanic adults (n = 2,592) who met DSM-IV criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence at Wave 1 (2000 to 2001). We tested gender differences in Wave 2 (2004 to 2005) services utilization, perceived need for help, and treatment barriers using Rao-Scott chi-square tests and assessed predictors of outcomes in multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for problem severity, co-occurring disorders, and demographics.

RESULTS

Women had much lower odds than men of utilizing any alcohol service (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.53; 95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.33, 0.86), specialty services (aOR 0.41; 95% CI 0.19, 0.87), and 12-step groups (aOR 0.39; 95% CI 0.21, 0.71). Perceived need for help among those who had not used any services was very low (5%), with no gender difference. Further, men and women reported equivalent numbers of treatment barriers and the same rank order for the most frequently endorsed barriers. However, women were twice as likely as men to think a problem would get better by itself-the most frequent reason for not seeking help (47% vs. 24%, p < 0.001), and men were more likely than women to report unsuccessful past help-seeking and not thinking anyone could help (19% vs. 3%, p < 0.001 and 17% vs. 5%, p = 0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous studies, women were less likely to utilize alcohol services than men. Future interventions should address low problem recognition, and tailoring to gender-specific barriers may help close the disparity in services utilization.

The health and wellbeing of Australian lesbian, gay and bisexual people: a systematic assessment using a longitudinal national sample

OBJECTIVE

This study revisits disparities in health and wellbeing by sexual identity in Australia, identifying which domains demand priority policy intervention, documenting differences between gay/lesbian vs. bisexual populations, and examining change over time in the relative health and wellbeing of sexual minorities.

METHOD

I fitted multivariable ordinary least squares and random-effect panel regression models on 20 outcomes to compare the health and wellbeing of heterosexual, gay/lesbian and bisexual people, using 2012/2016 data from a national probability sample - the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey.

RESULTS

I found strong associations between sexual minority identities and most health and wellbeing outcomes. These were comparatively larger for: role-emotional health, mental health and general health; bisexual compared to gay/lesbian people; and minority women compared to minority men. I found no change over time in the relative health and wellbeing outcomes of gay/lesbian people, but evidence of worsening circumstances among bisexual people.

CONCLUSION

There are important disparities in the health and wellbeing profiles of different sexual minority populations in Australia, based on sex (male vs. female), sexual identity (gay/lesbian vs. bisexual), and observation time (2012 vs. 2016). Implications for public health: Sexual identity remains an important marker of risk for health and wellbeing outcomes within Australia, underscoring the importance of fully integrating sexual identity in health policy and practice.