Health Conditions, Access to Care, Mental Health, and Wellness Behaviors in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Adults

Abstract

This study examined relationships among wellness behaviors, physical health conditions, mental health, health insurance, and access to care among a sample of 317 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults. Participants completed a web-administered survey from May 2013 to April 2014. Of the sample, 41.6% of the participants reported having one or more health conditions. Most participants (92.1%) reported access to a health care facility and current health insurance coverage (84.9%), though 24.9% of those with health insurance reported being incapable of paying the copayments. Physical health conditions, age, and self-esteem explained 24% of the variance in engagement in wellness behaviors; older age, a greater number of health conditions, higher self-esteem, possession of health insurance, and ability to access to care were associated with increased wellness behaviors. Providing affordable insurance coverage, improving access to care, and properly treating mental health in LGBT individuals could improve wellness behaviors.

A cross-sectional study of the relationship between depression status, health care coverage, and sexual orientation

“…The lack of significant moderation in this study can be potentially explained by two rationales: (1) the small sample size of sexual minority populations in this study made the moderation relatively undetectable and (2) probable depression was a robust predictor on its own toward predicting low health coverage, which could potentially mask the effect of sexual orientation. Nonetheless, sexual minorities still suffer from disproportionate mental health burden and health care coverage gaps according to the previous studies and the results from this study [ 2 , 12 , 22 , 23 , 33 ]. According to the BMHSU model, health care coverage is an enabling factor for addressing health care needs.…”

“…Participants were divided into two groups: (1) those who were insured and had not experienced unaffordable medical costs (“high coverage”) and (2) those who were either insured or uninsured but had experienced unaffordable medical costs (“low coverage”). The rationale behind combining these two variables was that health insurance status alone rarely explains its association with mental illness, and previous research found that difficulty of paying copayment did exist among insured LGB populations [ 12 ].…”

“…According to the MST, minority status often interacts with other factors which creates synergistic effect that put minority populations at greater risk of mental illnesses [ 24 ]. While the lack of health care coverage affects all individuals’ mental wellbeing, minority populations such as sexual minorities are at greater risk of mental illnesses compared to the heterosexual population due to lack of coverage or lack of professional knowledge, skills, and cultural competencies from the health professionals to provide quality LGBT care [ 12 , 35 , 39 ]. Meanwhile, in Andersen’s BMHSU, three main categories of population characteristics are proposed that influence health behavior and outcomes.…”

Exploration of Demographic Differences in Past and Anticipated Future Care Experiences of Older Sexual Minority Adults

“…Individuals with higher education may have better access to care and the ability to pay for care, which is important to note given historical barriers encountered by SM individuals in accessing care. These healthcare barriers among SM individuals and the larger SGM population have been well documented (Henry et al, 2020; Martos et al, 2018, 2019) and have resulted in unmet care needs (Fish et al, 2021; Wolstein et al, 2018). Having the financial ability to seek and obtain the care needed may reduce health disparities among some SGM populations (Gonzales et al, 2021).…”

Exploring the Relationship of Integrated Behavioral and Primary Healthcare with Wellness Profiles

“…Heath et al's (2013) model noted that individuals receiving collaborative care are more likely to be managing symptoms of potential mental and physical health conditions and, thus less likely to be impacting their wellness.Lastly, higher proportions of individuals from the LGBTQIA + community were represented in pro les with lower wellness scores. Previous scholars noted that the LGBTQIA + community is more likely to receive reactive services for their wellness and less likely to nd competent providers to manage their unique presenting concerns(Henry et al, 2020;Moe, 2016). For example, Moe (2016) completed a metaanalysis of 25 studies examining the wellness of individuals from the LGBTQIA + community and concluded that wellness scores tend to be lower than non-sexual minority individuals.…”