Background: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people may be at higher risk of mental disorders than heterosexual people.

BackgroundPrevious studies have indicated increased risk of mental disorder symptoms, suicide and substance misuse in lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) adults, compared to heterosexual adults. Our aims were to determine an estimate of the association between sexual orientation identity and poor mental health and wellbeing among adults from 12 population surveys in the UK, and to consider whether effects differed for specific subgroups of the population.MethodsIndividual data were pooled from the British Cohort Study 2012, Health Survey for England 2011, 2012 and 2013, Scottish Health Survey 2008 to 2013, Longitudinal Study of Young People in England 2009/10 and Understanding Society 2011/12. Individual participant meta-analysis was used to pool estimates from each study, allowing for between-study variation.ResultsOf 94,818 participants, 1.1 % identified as lesbian/gay, 0.9 % as bisexual, 0.8 % as ‘other’ and 97.2 % as heterosexual. Adjusting for a range of covariates, adults who identified as lesbian/gay had higher prevalence of common mental disorder when compared to heterosexuals, but the association was different in different age groups: apparent for those under 35 (OR = 1.78, 95 % CI 1.40, 2.26), weaker at age 35–54.9 (OR = 1.42, 95 % CI 1.10, 1.84), but strongest at age 55+ (OR = 2.06, 95 % CI 1.29, 3.31). These effects were stronger for bisexual adults, similar for those identifying as ‘other’, and similar for 'low wellbeing'.ConclusionsIn the UK, LGB adults have higher prevalence of poor mental health and low wellbeing when compared to heterosexuals, particularly younger and older LGB adults. Sexual orientation identity should be measured routinely in all health studies and in administrative data in the UK in order to influence national and local policy development and service delivery. These results reiterate the need for local government, NHS providers and public health policy makers to consider how to address inequalities in mental health among these minority groups.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12888-016-0767-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The objective of this article is to establish the prevalence of spasticity in a random selection of people with multiple sclerosis (MS) in the city of Newcastle upon Tyne in the Northeast of England. A secondary aim was to assess the adequacy of current pharmacological intervention for spasticity and assess the relationship between spasticity and overall disability. The study design was a simple comparison that examined differences in functional independence in 2 random groups of people with MS subdivided by the presence of clinically significant spasticity. A total of 68 adults with a diagnosis of clinically definite MS were included in the study. Their level of functional independence was assessed using the Newcastle Independence Assessment Form (NIAF), the Functional Independence Measure (FIM), and the Kurtzke Extended Disability Status Scale (EDSS). Spasticity was assessed using the Modified Ashworth Scale. A subjective analysis was made of the appropriateness of oral antispastic medication by a rehabilitation physician. Thirty-two people (47%) had clinically significant spasticity (Modified Ashworth Score of 2, 3, or 4). Seventy-eight percent of the population were receiving some oral antispastic medication, but 50% were deemed to require some drug adjustment or additional treatment. Individuals with spasticity were found to have significantly higher levels of disability than those who had no spasticity or clinically insignificant spasticity. This study has confirmed that spasticity is highly prevalent in the MS population and is significantly associated with a reduced level of functional independence. Treatment of spasticity is suboptimal in a large proportion of the population, and the need for further information and education to health professionals and to people with MS is highlighted.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans+ a (LGBT+) people report poorer health than the general population and worse experiences of healthcare particularly cancer, palliative/end-of-life, dementia and mental health provision. This is attributable to: a) social inequalities, including 'minority stress'; b) associated health-risk behaviours (e.g. smoking, excessive drug/alcohol use, obesity); c) loneliness and isolation, affecting physical/mental health and mortality; d) anticipated/experienced discrimination and e) inadequate understandings of needs among healthcare providers. Older LGBT+ people are particularly affected, due to the effects of both cumulative disadvantage and ageing. There is a need for greater and more robust research data to support growing international and national government initiatives aimed at addressing these health inequalities. We identify seven key research strategies: 1) Production of large datasets; 2) Comparative data collection; 3) Addressing diversity and intersectionality among LGBT+ older people; 4) Investigation of healthcare services' capacity to deliver LGBT+ affirmative healthcare and associated education and training needs; 5) Identification of effective health promotion and/or treatment interventions for older LGBT+ people, and sub-groups within this umbrella category; 6) Development an (older) LGBT+ health equity model; 7) Utilisation of social justice concepts to ensure meaningful, change-orientated data production which will inform and support government policy, health promotion and healthcare interventions.