Long-term conditions among sexual minority adults in England: evidence from a cross-sectional analysis of responses to the English GP Patient Survey

Service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions: reflections of a rapid evaluation team

Background

People living with multiple long-term conditions represent a significant concern for National Health Service policy and practice, and their care is a major theme in the 2019 National Health Service Long Term Plan. The Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre team has undertaken a thematic synthesis of the 10 evaluations it has conducted from 2018 to 2023, exploring the needs, priorities and implications for people with multiple long-term conditions.

Objectives

The aims for this overarching study were to: (1) build a body of learning about service innovations in primary and community settings for people of all ages with multiple long-term conditions, focused on questions that matter most to people with multimorbidity; and (2) develop methodological insights about how rapid evaluation can be used to inform the scoping, testing and implementation of service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions.

Design

The focus on multiple long-term conditions came from a Birmingham RAND and Cambridge Rapid Evaluation Centre prioritisation process undertaken in 2018 using James Lind Alliance methods. Cross-analysis of the findings from the 10 individual rapid evaluations was supplemented by (1) building aspects of multimorbidity into the design of later evaluations; (2) interviewing national and regional stakeholders (n=19) working in or alongside integrated care systems; (3) undertaking a rapid review of evidence on remote monitoring for people with multiple long-term conditions (19 papers included); and (4) testing overall insights with organisations representing patients and carers through a patient, public and professional engagement workshop with 10 participants plus members of the research team.

Results

While living with multiple long-term conditions is common and is the norm for people over the age of 50 using health and care services, it is not often a focus of health service provision or innovation, nor of research and evaluation activity. We discuss six themes emerging from the totality of the study: (1) our health system is mainly organised around single conditions and not multiple long-term conditions; (2) research calls and studies usually focus on single conditions and associated services; (3) building opportunities for engaged, informed individuals and carers and improved self-management; (4) the importance of measures that matter for patients and carers; (5) barriers to developing and implementing service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions; and (6) what is needed to make patients with multiple long-term conditions a priority in healthcare planning and delivery.

Limitations

Care of people with multiple long-term conditions was not the principal focus of several of the rapid evaluations. While this was a finding in itself, it limited our learning about designing and implementing, as well as methodological approaches to evaluating, service innovations for people with multiple long-term conditions.

Conclusions

Through a thematic analysis of the portfolio of evaluations, we have deduced a set of suggested implications for how the needs of people with multiple long-term conditions can be better embedded in policy, research and practice.

Future work

Areas of uncertainty related to the care of people with multiple long-term conditions should be further explored, including developing and testing measures of patient experience of (un)co-ordinated care across settings, and interrogating the experience of health and care staff when working with people with multiple long-term conditions, to understand what works.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR134284) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 15. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Using Routine Data to Improve Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health

The collection of sexual orientation in routine data, generated either from contacts with health services or in infrastructure data resources designed and collected for policy and research, has improved substantially in the United Kingdom in the last decade. Inclusive measures of gender and transgender status are now also beginning to be collected. This viewpoint considers current data collections, and their strengths and limitations, including accessing data, sample size, measures of sexual orientation and gender, measures of health outcomes, and longitudinal follow-up. The available data are considered within both sociopolitical and biomedical models of health for individuals who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, or of other identities including nonbinary (LGBTQ+). Although most individual data sets have some methodological limitations, when put together, there is now a real depth of routine data for LGBTQ+ health research. This paper aims to provide a framework for how these data can be used to improve health and health care outcomes. Four practical analysis approaches are introduced-descriptive epidemiology, risk prediction, intervention development, and impact evaluation-and are discussed as frameworks for translating data into research with the potential to improve health.

Regional and Local Inequalities in Disability Status by Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity: A Cross-Sectional Ecological Analysis of the 2021 Census of England and Wales

Purpose

To examine regional differences in disability status by sexual orientation and gender identity and to explore local factors that are associated with levels of inequalities for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or other sexual orientations (LGB+) or transgender.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional ecological analysis of 2021 Census data from England and Wales. The main outcome variable was disability status. The main explanatory variables were sexual orientation and gender identity. Weighed linear regression was used to examine differences in disability status by sexual orientation (LGB+ vs. heterosexual) and gender identity (transgender vs. cisgender). The magnitude of between-group differences was explored by region and, in England, local authority-level urbanization and socioeconomic deprivation.

Results

Among 48.5 million census respondents within 331 local authority districts (LADs) across England and Wales, LGB+ and transgender groups were more likely to report having a disability than their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts. Inequalities were prevalent across regions of England and Wales, but were smallest in the Greater London area and largest in the southwest of England. Inequalities were also larger within English LADs that were relatively less urbanized and relatively more socioeconomically deprived.

Conclusions

This study identified disparities in disability status by sexual orientation and gender identity, which varied by region and local socioeconomic deprivation and urbanization. More research is needed to better understand how to support disabled LGBT+ people, especially those in less urbanized and more socioeconomically deprived areas.

Cognitive Impairment in Sexual and Gender Minority Groups: A Scoping Review of the Literature

Purpose: The purpose of this review was to synthesize evidence on differences in cognitive impairment by sexual orientation/gender identity (SOGI) status. Methods: A scoping review of the literature was conducted. Five databases (PubMed/Medline, Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, PsycInfo, and Embase) were searched for primary articles comparing incidence or prevalence of cognitive impairment among sexual and gender minority (SGM) groups versus non-SGM groups. Two reviewers independently screened articles and conducted risk-of-bias assessment on eligible articles. Results: Fifteen primary studies were eligible. Most studies (n = 13) were cross-sectional, with moderate to critical risk of bias. Among eight studies examining self-reported cognitive impairment, seven reported a higher prevalence among some SGM groups versus non-SGM groups. Among seven studies using objective measures of cognitive impairment, three examined prevalence of clinician-documented diagnosis of dementia, of which two reported a higher prevalence specifically among transgender versus cisgender individuals. Among the other four studies examining objective measures, two reported poorer cognitive performance or memory, one reported better performance, and another reported no difference. Comparisons across studies were challenging due to inconsistencies in how SOGI and cognitive impairment were operationalized, and the factors used for statistical adjustment; some studies adjusted for putative intermediary factors that potentially explain differences in cognitive impairment. Conclusions: Whereas most published studies identified a positive relationship between SOGI status and self-reported cognitive impairment, evidence is mixed with regard to objective cognitive performance. Well-designed longitudinal, observational studies are needed, using objective measures of cognitive function, with careful consideration of confounding versus intermediary risk factors.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) and sexualised drug use among men who have sex with men: a systematic review

Drug-related harms, including harms from sexualised drug use (SDU), are disproportionately experienced by sexual and gender minority people, relative to their majority counterparts. Chemsex, a type of SDU practiced mainly by MSM, is associated with methamphetamine use and increased HIV seropositivity or risk of acquisition. Therefore, participants are at increased risk of immunocompromise. Existing evidence suggests that drug use increases following natural disasters. The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on chemsex is unknown. A PRISMA-adherent systematic review was conducted to synthesise reports of changes in the prevalence, frequency, or characteristics of drug use (and factors associated with these changes) following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. This report presents findings related to SDU/chemsex among MSM. A comprehensive search across nine databases, supplemented with backward-forward citation searching and contact with key opinion leaders, was conducted. Two reviewers carried out title-abstract screening, full-text screening, and data extraction. Following a final, single database search, nine studies were included in the narrative synthesis. More than half the sample were studies investigating HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis use. Twenty percent of participants in most studies reported chemsex participation. In four, participants reported a net increase or maintenance of chemsex participation during the pandemic and five reported a net decrease. Increased chemsex participation was associated with loneliness, cravings, and working during the pandemic. Decreased chemsex practice was associated with COVID-19-related fear. This synthesis suggests that chemsex practice continued, and for some MSM increased, throughout COVID-19 pandemic 'lockdowns'. This may have increased COVID-19 transmission and severity among potentially vulnerable MSM.

Breast, Prostate, Colorectal, and Lung Cancer Incidence and Risk Factors in Women Who Have Sex with Women and Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Analysis Using UK Biobank

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence about cancer incidence for lesbian, gay and bisexual women and men, although the prevalence of cancer risk factors may be higher.

AIM

To describe cancer incidence for four common cancers (breast, lung, colorectal and prostate).

METHODS

This project used UK Biobank participant data. We explored risk factor prevalence (age, deprivation, ethnicity, smoking, alcohol intake, obesity, parity, and sexual history), and calculated cancer risk, for six groups defined based on sexual history; women who have sex exclusively with men (WSEM), or women (WSEW), women who have sex with men and women (WSWM); men who have sex exclusively with women (MSEW), or men (MSEM), and men who have sex with women and men (MSWM).

RESULTS

WSEW, WSWM, MSEM, and MSMW were younger, more likely to smoke, and to live in more deprived neighbourhoods. We found no evidence of an association between sexual history and breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer in age-adjusted models. Lung cancer incidence was higher for WSWM compared with WSEM, HR (95%CI) 1.78 (1.28-2.48), p = 0.0005, and MSWM compared with MSEW, 1.43 (1.03-1.99), p = 0.031; after adjustment for smoking, this difference was no longer significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Sexual minority groups have a higher risk for lung cancer, due to greater exposure to smoking.

Demographic characteristics, long-term health conditions and healthcare experiences of 6333 trans and non-binary adults in England: nationally representative evidence from the 2021 GP Patient Survey

OBJECTIVE

In order to address the lack of data on the health and healthcare needs of trans and non-binary adults, NHS England includes questions asking about both gender and trans status in its surveys to support quality improvement programmes.We used self-reported data from the GP Patient Survey to answer the research question: what are the demographic characteristics, health conditions and healthcare experiences of trans and non-binary adults in England?

DESIGN/SETTING

Nationally representative, population-based cross-sectional survey in England with survey data collection from January to March 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

840 691 survey respondents including 6333 trans and non-binary adults.

OUTCOMES

We calculated weighted descriptive statistics, and using logistic regression explored 15 long-term physical and mental health conditions, and 18 patient experience items, covering overall experience, access, communication and continuity.

RESULTS

Trans and non-binary adults were younger, more likely to be from Asian, black, mixed or other ethnic groups and more likely to live in more deprived parts of the country. Age-specific patterns of long-term conditions were broadly similar among trans and non-binary adults compared with all other survey respondents, with some variation by condition. Overall, inequalities in long-term health conditions were largest for autism: OR (95% CI), 5.8 (5.0 to 6.6), dementia: 3.1 (2.5 to 3.9), learning disabilities: 2.8 (2.4 to 3.2) and mental health: 2.0 (1.9 to 2.2), with variation by age. In healthcare experience, disparities are much greater for interpersonal communication (OR for reporting a positive experience, range 0.4 to 0.7 across items) than access (OR range 0.8 to 1.2). Additionally, trans and non-binary adults report much higher preference for continuity 1.7 (1.6 to 1.8), with no evidence of any differences in being able to see or speak to a preferred general practitioner.

CONCLUSION

This research adds up to date evidence about population demographics, health and healthcare needs to support healthcare improvement for trans and non-binary adults.

Sex Differences in Comorbidity Combinations in the Swedish Population

High comorbidity rates, especially mental–physical comorbidity, constitute an increasing health care burden, with women and men being differentially affected. To gain an overview of comorbidity rates stratified by sex across a range of different conditions, this study examines comorbidity patterns within and between cardiovascular, pulmonary, skin, endocrine, digestive, urogenital, musculoskeletal, neurological diseases, and psychiatric conditions. Self-report data from the LifeGene cohort of 31,825 participants from the general Swedish population (62.5% female, 18–84 years) were analyzed. Pairwise comorbidity rates of 54 self-reported conditions in women and men and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for their comparison were calculated. Overall, the rate of pairwise disease combinations with significant comorbidity was higher in women than men (14.36% vs. 9.40%). Among psychiatric conditions, this rate was considerably high, with 41.76% in women and 39.01% in men. The highest percentages of elevated mental–physical comorbidity in women were found for musculoskeletal diseases (21.43%), digestive diseases (20.71%), and skin diseases (13.39%); in men, for musculoskeletal diseases (14.29%), neurological diseases (11.22%), and digestive diseases (10%). Implications include the need for integrating mental and physical health care services and a shift from a disease-centered to an individualized, patient-centered focus in clinical care.

Navigating the LGB Data Landscape: A Review of Appropriate Secondary Data Sources for Sexuality and Substance Use Research in the UK

Research has found that sexual minority individuals are more likely to experience health inequalities and have higher rates of substance use compared with their heterosexual counterparts. This association between sexuality and health outcomes is increasingly being explored using quantitative methodologies within the context of public health, psychology and health geography. Much of this research, however, has relied on primary data, despite the wide availability of secondary sources, mainly survey data, collecting information on sexuality and different types of health outcomes and health risk behaviours, such as substance use. This study reviewed recent surveys in the UK that are appropriate for exploring topics related to LGB populations and substance use behaviours. We carried out a narrative review of secondary data sources in the UK to assess the accessibility and suitability of secondary sources for sexuality and substance use research. We identified eight cross-sectional and two longitudinal surveys that contained both sexuality and substance use data. We summarised the possible applications of each survey and the scope of questions within sexuality and substance use research that could be addressed by each survey. The identification of appropriate surveys in this review can allow researchers to extend the use of secondary data sources in the UK to examine substance use inequalities between sexuality groups, further advancing this key topic.