Understanding Sexual Minority Health Disparities in Rural Areas

Abstract

This article reviews research from several disciplines including sociology, psychology, and public health to examine recent inconsistencies in findings of rural/urban health disparities among sexual minority populations. Previous work has found that sexual minorities (lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals) report worse health than their heterosexual counterparts on many physical and mental health measures. To understand this occurrence, scholars have situated these findings most often within either minority stress or fundamental cause frameworks. These theories attribute health differences to unique stressors and stigmatization experienced by sexual minorities within a heteronormative social climate. This review provides an overview of specific health disparities by gender and sexual orientation, critically examines research on rural/urban health differences among sexual minorities, and offers three avenues for future research to help remedy the inconsistent results of previous rural/urban sexual minority health disparities research. Discussions of the ‘rural effect,’ rural social support resources, and the importance of geographic region for health are included as opportunities to further social scientific research on sexual minority health disparities.

A pilot test of a text message-based transgender and nonbinary affirmative cognitive-behavioral intervention for anxiety and depression.

“…Rural TNB people report that when they do gain access to mental health care, they may encounter stigma while interacting with providers and/or may be denied care (Rosenkrantz, Black, Abreu, Aleshire, & Fallin-Bennett, 2017; Whitehead, Shaver, & Stephenson, 2016). These negative experiences discourage TNB people from accessing mental health resources and increase the lack of trust in the medical community within TNB communities (Woodell, 2018).…”

Support over Social Media among Socially Isolated Sexual and Gender Minority Youth in Rural U.S. during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Opportunities for Intervention Research

“…The lack of accessible SGM-specific health resources and information in their communities may make rural SGM youth more vulnerable to negative mental health outcomes than their non-SGM peers in the same areas, and compared to both SGM and non-SGM youth in urban settings [ 25 ]. Importantly, empirical evidence shows that positive representation of and establishing connections with other SGM youth that share the same intersectionality (i.e., SGM and rurality) are important sources of perceived support for SGM youth living in rural areas [ 26 ].…”

Association between the geographic accessibility of PrEP and PrEP use among MSM in nonurban areas

“…There is a dearth of primary care physicians, HIV specialty clinics, and adequate transportation systems to access these providers and services in rural and suburban areas across the United States, hindering efforts to reduce the HIV epidemic in these less urbanized areas. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an antiretroviral medication that is efficacious for HIV prevention in HIV-negative persons at increased risk for HIV infection, [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] and scaling up this biomedical intervention in nonurban areas can help address the growing HIV epidemic in these areas.…”