This study tested direct and indirect associations between minority stressors and psychological distress a large, geographically diverse sample of transgender individuals (N = 1,207). Transgender individuals were recruited for an online, cross-sectional survey using targeted sampling. Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypothesized model, which was based on Hatzenbuehler's (2009) integrative mediation framework. Expectations of rejection, self-stigma and prejudice events were all associated with psychological distress, and these relationships were partially accounted for by rumination. This model had good fit (TLI = .96, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05 (90% CI [.05, .06]) and explained 54.5% of the variance in psychological distress and 29.3% in rumination. This is the first study to examine a model of minority stress and psychological distress that includes rumination and all four minority stressors from Meyer's (2003) framework in a large sample of transgender individuals. Results indicate a strong relationship between minority stressors and psychological distress among transgender people, and that these relationships are partially explained by rumination. Results need to be considered in relation to the cross-sectional nature of the design and the possible role for additional variables. Future research should investigate these findings using designs that provide tests of causality.

This study tested the mechanisms by which social stigma contributes to psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. A large community sample (N = 4248, M age = 29.9 years, 42.9% female, 57.1% male, 35.7% bisexual, 64.3% lesbian/gay, 9.9% non-white) was recruited using targeted and general advertisements for an online cross-sectional survey. Participants completed measures of childhood gender nonconformity, prejudice events, victimization, microaggressions, sexual orientation concealment, sexual orientation disclosure, expectations of rejection, self-stigma, rumination, and distress. Structural equation modeling was used to test the relationships between these variables in a model based upon minority stress theory and the integrative mediation framework with childhood gender nonconformity as the initial independent variable and distress (depression, anxiety, and well-being) as the final dependent variable. The results broadly support the hypothesized model. The final model had good fit χ 2 (37) = 440.99, p < .001, TLI = .96, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .05 [.05, .06] and explained 50.2% of the variance in psychological distress and 24.8% in rumination. Sexual orientation and gender had moderating effects on some individual paths. Results should be considered in the context of the cross-sectional nature of the data, which prevented tests of causality, and self-report measures used, which are vulnerable to bias. Findings indicate strong relationships between minority stressors and psychological distress in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals, which are partially accounted for by rumination. These results may inform the development of interventions that address the added burden of minority stress among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals.

Background: COVID-19 has disproportionately impacted vulnerable populations, including Black men who have sex with men (BMSM) and transgender women (BTW). We investigated associations of COVID-19 stressors and sex behaviors with pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and antiretroviral therapy (ART) among BMSM and BTW.Methods: As part of the Neighborhoods and Networks (N2) study, we conducted virtual interviews during peak COVID-19 infectivity in Chicago among BMSM and BTW (April-July 2020). Survey questions included multilevel COVID-19 stressors, sex behaviors, and current PrEP/ART use and access. Poisson regressions were used to examining relationships between COVID-19 stressors, sex behaviors, and PrEP/ART use/access.Results: Among 222 participants, 31.8% of participants not living with HIV reported current PrEP use and 91.8% of participants living with HIV reported ART use during the pandemic. Most (83.3% and 78.2%, respectively) reported similar or easier PrEP and ART access during the pandemic. Physical stress reaction to COVID-19 [adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 2.1; confidence interval (CI): 1.3 to 3.5] and being in close proximity with someone diagnosed with COVID-19 (aPR = 1.7; CI: 1.1 to 2.8) were associated with current PrEP use. Intimate partner violence (aPR = 2.7; CI: 1.0 to 7.2) and losing health insurance (aPR = 3.5; CI: 1.1 to 10.7) were associated with harder ART access. Travel-related financial burden was associated with harder access in PrEP (aPR = 3.2; CI: 1.0 to 10.1) and ART (aPR = 6.2; CI: 1.6 to 24.3). Conclusions:Multiple COVID-19 stressors were found to interfere with PrEP and ART use and access among BMSM and BTW. Contextually relevant strategies (eg, promoting telehealth and decreasing transportation burden) to address COVID-19 stressors and their sequelae should be considered to minimize disruption in HIV biomedical interventions.

These results support environmental factors as a causal explanation for disparities in rumination between LGB and heterosexual individuals. These factors likely include minority stressors. Rumination may also be associated with minority stressors in heterosexual MZ co-twins of LGB individuals.

No abstract

BackgroundHealthcare organisations have legal and ethical duties to reduce inequalities in access to healthcare services and related outcomes. However, lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people continue to experience and anticipate discrimination in health and social care. Skilled communication is vital for quality person-centred care, but there is inconsistent provision of evidence-based clinician education on health needs and experiences of LGBT+ people to support this. This study aimed to identify key stakeholders’ experiences, preferences and best practices for communication regarding sexual orientation, gender identity and gender history in order to reduce inequalities in healthcare.MethodsSemistructured qualitative interviews with LGBT+ patients with serious illness, significant others and clinicians, recruited via UK-wide LGBT+ groups, two hospitals and one hospice in England. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis.Results74 stakeholders participated: 34 LGBT+ patients with serious illness, 13 significant others and 27 multiprofessional clinicians. Participants described key communication strategies to promote inclusive practice across three domains: (1) ‘Creating positive first impressions and building rapport’ were central to relationship building and enacted through routine use of inclusive language, avoiding potentially negative non-verbal signals and echoing terminology used by patients and caregivers; (2) ‘Enhancing care by actively exploring and explaining the relevance of sexual orientation and gender identity’, participants described the benefits of clinicians initiating these discussions, pursuing topics guided by the patient’s response or expressed preferences for disclosure. Active involvement of significant others was encouraged to demonstrate recognition of the relationship; these individual level actions are underpinned by a foundation of (3) ‘visible and consistent LGBT+ inclusiveness in care systems’. Although participants expressed hesitance talking about LGBT+ identities with individuals from some sociocultural and religious backgrounds, there was widespread support for institutions to adopt a standardised, LGBT+ inclusive, visibly supportive approach.ConclusionsPerson-centred care can be enhanced by incorporating discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity into routine clinical practice. Inclusive language and sensitive exploration of relationships and identities are core activities. Institutions need to support clinicians through provision of adequate training, resources, inclusive monitoring systems, policies and structures. Ten inclusive communication recommendations are made based on the data.

No abstract

Background: Support from social networks is vital after the death of a partner. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGBT+) people can face disenfranchisement and isolation in bereavement. The Acceptance-Disclosure Model (of LGBT+ bereavement) posits that experiences are shaped by the extent to which individuals feel able to disclose their bereavement to others, and whether that loss is acknowledged appropriately. Aim: To explore LGBT+ specific experiences of partner bereavement; determine decision-making processes regarding disclosure of relationships/identities; and appraise the Acceptance-Disclosure Model using primary qualitative data. Design: Exploratory in-depth qualitative interview study positioned within a social constructivist paradigm. Data were analysed using inductive and deductive reflexive thematic analysis. Setting/participants: 21 LGBT+ people from across England bereaved of their civil partner/spouse. Results: Participants described LGBT+ specific stressors in bereavement: lack of recognition of their loss; inappropriate questioning; unwanted disclosure of gender history; and fears of discrimination when accessing support. Disclosure of LGBT+ identities varied across social networks. Some participants described hiding their identities and bereavement to preserve relationships, and challenging intersections between LGBT+ identities and other aspects of culture or self. These findings provide primary evidence to support the Acceptance-Disclosure Model. Conclusions: LGBT+ people face additional stressors in bereavement. Not all LGBT+ people want to talk directly about their relationships/identities. Sensitive exploration of support needs, aligned with preferences around disclosure of identities, can help foster trust. Five recommendations for inclusive practice are presented. Further research should consider whether the Acceptance-Disclosure Model has utility to explain bereavement experiences for other isolated or disenfranchised groups.