Next Article in Journal
The Mental Wellbeing of Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS) Workers in England: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study Reporting Levels of Burnout, Wellbeing and Job Satisfaction
Previous Article in Journal
The Effects of Soft-Tissue Techniques and Exercise in the Treatment of Patellar Tendinopathy—Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Challenges in Transition of Care for People with Variations in Sex Characteristics in the European Context
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/healthcare12040429
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Negative Associations between Minority Stressors and Self-Reported Health Status among Sexual Minority Adults Living in Colombia

by
Paola Roldán
*,
Angela Matijczak
and
Jacob Goffnett
School of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 23220, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(4), 429; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12040429
Submission received: 30 November 2023 / Revised: 29 January 2024 / Accepted: 4 February 2024 / Published: 7 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue LGBTQI+ Health)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Colombia has extensive laws prohibiting discrimination against sexual minority people. However, violence and discrimination toward sexual minorities are still frequent. While a growing body of research shows that sexual minority people experience elevated rates of discrimination and domestic abuse globally, little research has been conducted on these issues affecting sexual minorities in Colombia specifically. Using minority stress theory as a conceptual framework, this paper aims to fill this gap by examining the prevalence of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and witnessed discrimination and the relationship of these stressors to self-reported health among a national sample of sexual minority Colombians. We found that bisexual individuals experienced higher rates of physical and sexual IPV, compared to lesbian and gay individuals. Additionally, sexual minority Colombians who experienced IPV and witnessed discrimination were more likely to report having poorer health, compared to those who had not. We discuss the implications of our findings for future research and clinicians working with sexual minority clients.

1. Introduction

Sexual minority Colombians frequently report identity-related victimization and discrimination despite being protected by the country’s broad anti-discrimination laws [1,2]. According to [3], 85% of sexual minority Colombians have experienced violence due to prejudice that includes physical, sexual, patrimonial, economic, and psychological forms. A few empirical studies also demonstrate the prevalence of discrimination experiences in the country [3,4,5]. A study exploring the well-being of sexual minority Colombians [4], found that 25% of participants were discriminated against at work, and 21% received conversion therapy. Scholars attribute these elevated risks to a pervasive stigma toward sexual minority identities and same-sex relationships that is informed by conservative and heterosexist notions embedded in the Latin American culture [6,7,8,9,10].
A burgeoning body of research demonstrates that sexual minority people are at an increased risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) in societies worldwide [11,12,13,14,15,16], but there is a dearth of research on this form of victimization among sexual minority Colombians [5,8,10]. It is critical to investigate the rates and impact of IPV among sexual minority Colombians, as research shows IPV is a prevalent form of victimization in the country [10,17,18,19]. A nationally representative survey showed that around 66% of women aged 13–49 reported encountering some form of IPV in their lifetime [19]. Furthermore, the elevated experience of IPV for Colombian women is associated with a cadre of poor behavioral health outcomes such as increased cortisol levels, psychological distress and smoking, alcohol, and drug use [17,20,21,22]. This association is consistent with the findings of a study exploring domestic violence among same-sex couples in the Colombian Caribbean Region [10].
It is essential to promote optimal health for sexual minority Colombians by conducting further research that explores the population’s experiences of IPV and investigates experiences of discrimination. Additionally, there is an economic imperative underlying such research, as a recent study found that in 2018, the cost of the adverse health outcomes experienced by young Colombian women alone due to physical IPV led to an economic burden of 90.6 million U.S. dollars [17]. The present study explores the prevalence of IPV and witnessed discrimination and the relationship of these stressors to self-reported health among a national sample of sexual minority Colombians. We first overview minority stress theory [23] as an empirical framework for understanding the health of sexual minority Colombians and then detail the relevant minority stress process within a Colombian context.

1.1. Minority Stress Theory

Experiences of victimization and discrimination have been termed distal minority stressors and are enactments of societal and cultural stigma against sexual minority identities and same-sex relationships [23,24,25,26]. Minority stress theory (MST) proposes that elevated rates of distal minority stressors experienced by sexual minority people contribute to the population’s disparately worse health outcomes compared to their heterosexual peers. Support for MST has relied heavily on studies conducted within the U.S. and with predominantly European samples [23,27,28,29]. Few studies have applied or culturally adapted MST to sexual minority individuals living in Latin American countries, such as Colombia. One study guided by MST found higher rates of suicidal ideation among gay men living in Colombia who experienced high levels of internalized homophobia—a proximal minority stressor—or were exposed to sexual abuse [30]. A study conducted by [31] explored whether the minority stress model could be generalized to explain the experiences of sexual minority men living in Brazil. This study’s results supported the use of the minority stress model in non-US samples, showing one form of minority stress, enacted stigma (e.g., harassment, rejection, aggression, violence, or discrimination), to significantly predict depressive symptoms among sexual minority men living in Brazil [31]. However, the authors note that this study was limited in scope due to the inclusion of only a few minority stressors; therefore, further testing of MST in Latin American countries is necessary.
Studies that have used MST among study samples of Hispanic or Latinx people living in the US have found significant relationships between minority stressors and health outcomes. For example, evidence supports that sexual minority Latino adults who experience unfair treatment (discrimination) have significantly higher levels of psychological distress than those who do not experience unfair treatment [32] and sexual minority Latinx young adults who experience high levels of family rejection have significantly higher levels of depression, substance use, and risky sexual behaviors than those who have no or low levels of family rejection [33]. Three qualitative studies documented the deleterious impact of several forms of structural stigma (e.g., negative religious discourses, intersectional invisibility, and misrepresentation in the media) and interpersonal discrimination (e.g., sexual objectification, gender policing, microinsults) on the health of sexual and gender minority Latinx participants [34,35,36]. It is important to note that even the literature testing MST in samples of sexual minority Latinx individuals living in the US is still emerging. The present study focuses on the relationship between two forms of distal stressors (i.e., IPV and witnessing discrimination) and self-reported health.

1.2. Intimate Partner Violence

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a form of victimization that occurs in romantic relationships. Exposure to IPV may be conceptualized as a minority stressor, given evidence that sexual minority people may have unique experiences of IPV that specifically relate to their sexual identities (e.g., being outed, homophobia) [37,38]. A few studies have documented the incidence of IPV among sexual minorities in Latin American communities and countries [8,39]. A recent study found that 60.6% of sexual and gender minority respondents in a study in Latin America (mainly in Mexico) reported having encountered some form of IPV at some point in their lives, with psychological aggression being the most frequent [8]. While nearly all studies on IPV in Colombia have focused on heterosexual couples or disregarded sexual orientation, ref. [40] examined the relationship between physical and sexual violence (perpetrated by a family member, partner, acquaintance, or stranger) and health among men who have sex with men (MSM) and transgender women living in Bogotá. The study found experiences of IPV to be associated with binge drinking and drug use [40], consistent with research on the harmful impact of IPV worldwide [41,42,43,44,45].

1.3. Witnessed Discrimination

Despite the increasing societal acceptance of sexual minorities, people who self-identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual continue to confront and witness persistent discrimination in various settings, such as public venues, health facilities, workplaces, and schools [46,47]. Discrimination based on sexual orientation can manifest in direct forms (e.g., being denied jobs or services due to sexual orientation) or indirect, vicarious forms (e.g., witnessing, overhearing, or being aware of others being discriminated against [48]). While most of the research has concentrated on direct discrimination experiences among sexual minorities [48,49], some studies show that vicarious minority stressors also negatively impact the health of sexual minority people [28,48,49]. The present study explores experiences of vicarious discrimination, focusing specifically on witnessing discrimination against sexual minority individuals across various social contexts, including work, school, community, religious, peer, familial, and recreational settings. Research has found that vicarious discrimination toward other sexual minorities is associated with poor mental health outcomes [48,50]. For example, Woodford and colleagues [48] found that sexual minority college students were more likely than heterosexual students to witness hostility (e.g., seeing/hearing someone being verbally threatened, bullied, or intimidated due to sexual orientation), which in turn was associated with higher odds of moderate/high levels of anxiety. Given the prevalence of anti-sexual minority discrimination in Colombia and the paucity of academic research on indirect discrimination faced by sexual minorities [48], investigating the vicarious manifestations of discrimination that sexual minority people face in Colombia is crucial.

1.4. Health of Sexual Minority Colombians

The Colombian health system is considered one of the best in Latin America since around 97% of the Colombian population is covered by subsidized or contributory healthcare schemes. Additionally, it boasts one of the lowest out-of-pocket healthcare expenses [51]. However, there are still gaps in effective and quality care, especially among the most marginalized people [3,51,52]. As such, sexual minority Colombians can face barriers to adequate access to health services due to stigmatization and discrimination, mainly evidenced by the lack of clear care criteria that consider this population’s specific needs [3,4,53]. While most sexual minority Colombians perceive their health as good [4,19], this population remains at elevated risk of health-related issues compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Empirical research highlights that the stress associated with sexual identity is pervasive among sexual minority Colombians [30]. Alarmingly, suicide morbidity rates are significantly higher among sexual and gender minority Colombian adults than among cisgender heterosexual individuals, with 56% of sexual and gender minority adults reporting having contemplated suicide at some point in their lives compared to 6.5% of their heterosexual peers [17]. Concerning physical health, sleep disorders are one of the most frequent health problems among sexual minority Colombians [4], and gay and bisexual men are at higher risk of HIV than the general population [4,40,54]. While these studies begin illuminating the extent of health disparities between sexual minorities and heterosexual Colombians, more research is needed to understand social environmental predictors that attenuate the benefits of pervasive access to healthcare to inform prevention and intervention efforts.

1.5. The Current Study

There is a dearth of research on the prevalence of distal minority stressors and their impact on health among sexual minority Colombians [4]. Moreover, no studies have examined IPV and witnessed discrimination among sexual minority Colombians, despite the prevalence of these stressors in other Latin communities and countries, and their association with health outcomes. We address this gap with a national sample of 593 sexual minority Colombian adults. Specifically, we explore differences in the prevalence of experiencing IPV and witnessed discrimination among subgroups of sexual minority Colombians (lesbian/gay vs. bisexual) and examine whether IPV and witnessed discrimination are related to the population’s self-reported health. We hypothesized that having experienced any form of IPV and witnessed discrimination would be associated with poorer self-reported health.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Data and Sample

We used data from the 2015 Colombian National Demographic and Health Survey (DHS). Data were collected between February 2015 and March 2016 and included a nationally representative sample of 38,718 females aged 13 to 49 years and 35,783 males aged 13 to 59 who voluntarily participated in the survey [19]. Data were gathered in person using a standardized structured questionnaire about violence, fertility, health, and sociodemographic characteristics. For the first time, the 2015 survey version included a set of questions about Colombians’ attitudes and experiences related to the sexual minority community.
The analytic sample for this study included only participants who self-identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (i.e., sexual minority; n = 593), given this study’s aims. The sample was majority assigned male at birth (59%) and those who identified as lesbian or gay (56%). Most participants reported being 18–28 years old (58%), having more than a high school education (59%), and never living in a union or married. A total of 91% percent of participants stated having health insurance, and 34% reported having any physical disability. Finally, most participants (51%) reported having good health, with only 11.5% of participants indicating their health was regular or bad (Table 1).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Dependent Variable

Self-Reported Health Status. Participants’ self-reported health status was measured with the question, “How would you rate your health status in general?”. Participants recorded their responses on a Likert-like scale with options that ranged from bad (1) to excellent (5). Since the number of observations in the category bad was small, observations were recoded to create four categories: bad/regular (1), good (2), very good (3), and excellent (4).

2.2.2. Independent Variables

Intimate Partner Violence. A modified Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus, 1990 [55]) was used to measure IPV. Participants were asked whether, in their relationship with their current or last partner, they have ever experienced (being victims) (1) physical violence (i.e., partner hit the participant with a fist, kicked her/him, tried to strangle her/him, threatened her/him with a weapon); (2) psychological violence (i.e., partner made decisions without her/him, partner threatened to leave her/him, partner threatened to take children from her/him); or (3) sexual violence (have you ever been physically forced into unwanted sex by the partner?). All response options were dichotomous (yes/no). Sexual violence was measured with one binary item. We recoded observations as having physical violence if the participant answered “yes” to at least one of six questions related to physical violence and recoded to not having experienced physical violence if they indicated “no” to all the questions. The same procedure was followed for psychological violence.
Witnessed Discrimination. Seven items were used to measure whether participants have ever witnessed a sexual minority person being discriminated against in different social environments, including work, health facilities, school, neighbors, religion, friends, family, and recreational spaces. All responses were dichotomous (yes/no).

2.2.3. Control Variables

Other sociodemographic variables included are age (a binary variable of age: 18–28 and 29–49), level of education (no education, less than high school, high school, and more than high school), sex assigned at birth (a binary variable: female/male). Dichotomous (yes/no) variables for health insurance and having employment were also included. A binary variable for physical disability was incorporated (i.e., having difficulty hearing voices or sounds, moving around, seeing far/close, talking, communicating, understanding, remembering, making decisions, eating, putting on clothes, taking a shower, relating/interacting with others, and performing daily chores). Observations were recoded as having physical disabilities if participants answered “yes” to at least one of these questions and recoded as not having a physical disability if they indicated “no” to all questions. Finally, household economic status was measured by the wealth index (WI) the DHS created. The WI measures a household’s living standard, representing the quintiles of the national Colombian wealth distribution (poorest, poorer, middle, richer, and richest). In the analyses, we recoded the lowest two categories (poorest and poor) as poor and the highest two categories (rich and richest) as rich.

2.2.4. Analytic Approach

We first conducted a bivariate analysis to test whether IPV outcomes and witnessed discrimination varied by sexual orientation (i.e., bisexual vs. lesbian or gay [LG] people) using chi-square. Next, we estimated the association between self-reported health status and independent variables using multivariate ordered logistic regression.
Since the parallel assumption of the ordered logit model was violated, we estimated the partial proportional odds model, a variant of the generalized ordered logit model in which coefficients of the regressions are constrained to be the same only for the variables that did not violate the parallel assumption (Williams, 2006 [56]). One advantage of this model is its parsimoniousness since it reduces the number of estimated coefficients compared to unconstrained or multinomial regression models.
To gauge the combined effect of sexual orientation and experiencing physical violence from a partner, we included an interaction term of being bisexual and experiencing intimate partner physical violence. Then, we added the coefficients of being bisexual and the coefficient of the interaction term to conduct a linear test hypothesis of these combined coefficients for each model (regular/bad, good, and very good), using Bonferroni-adjusted p-values.
All analyses were conducted in Stata 17. Sample weights and heteroskedasticity robust standard errors were used.

3. Results

3.1. Bivariate

The results from the analysis show that victimization experiences differed significantly between bisexual and LG participants. Physical and sexual violence were more prevalent among people who self-identified as bisexual (40.4%, p < 0.01; 8.6%, p < 0.01, respectively) than LG participants (25.6%; 2.2%, respectively). Psychological violence was prevalent among all participants: 65% of participants, regardless of their sexual orientation, reported having experienced psychological violence from their partners. The first section of Table 2 shows the percentage of participants who experienced IPV, according to their sexual orientation.
As shown in the second section of Table 2, witnessed discrimination based on sexual orientation is frequent in Colombian society. As reported by respondents, almost 60% of participants, regardless of their sexual orientation, had witnessed a sexual minority person being discriminated against at school (59.1%), by friends (60%), and by family (53%). The analysis also showed significant differences between bisexuals and LG participants. A higher percent of LG participants, relative to bisexual participants, reported ever witnessing a sexual minority person being discriminated against by neighbors (61.9% vs. 53.8%, p < 0.01), at work (48.6% vs. 43.1%, p < 0.01), and in religious groups (39.6% vs. 30.5%, p < 0.01) and recreational places (30.8% vs. 23.7%, p < 0.01).
There were no significant differences between LG and bisexual people regarding self-reported health. Most participants stated they have good health (51%), very good (10.8%), or excellent health (22.7%), while only 15.5% of participants reported bad/regular health.

3.2. Multivariate Analyses

Overall, the results from the partial proportional odds model (Table 3) indicate that being discriminated against at work and having any physical disability were associated with a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health status. Specifically, sexual minority participants who ever witnessed a sexual minority person being discriminated against at work have a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health status than those who did not witness this type of discrimination (coef. = −1.0, p < 0.05). Similarly, sexual minority people who reported having any physical disability hold a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health status than people who did not report having physical disabilities (coef. = −1.8, p < 0.01). In contrast, LGB people classified as middle income in the DHS wealth index hold a higher likelihood of reporting excellent health status than people classified as poor (coef. = 0.89, p < 0.05).
Our model also shows that identifying as bisexual and experiencing physical violence from a partner is associated with a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health status. In the regular/bad health status model, bisexual people, regardless of whether or not they have been exposed to physical violence from a partner, have a higher likelihood of reporting excellent health status rather than a regular/bad one (coef. = 2.16, p < 0.01). Furthermore, identifying as bisexual and experiencing intimate partner physical violence is associated with a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health rather than a regular/bad health status (coef. = −3.59, p < 0.01); however, the linear test hypothesis of the combined coefficients of being bisexual and having been exposed to intimate partner physical violence is not rejected to be zero (combined coef. = −1.43, chi2 = 4.81, p = 0.08). This means that the effects cancel each other; therefore, the net effect of bisexuals being exposed to intimate partner physical violence is not significant in this model.
In the good health status model, the coefficient of the bisexual variable was negative but not significant (coef. = −1.46, p = 0.09), and the coefficient of the interaction between bisexuals and bisexuals experiencing physical violence was negative but not significant (coef. = −0.42, p = 0.07); however, the linear test hypothesis of the combined coefficients of being bisexual and having been exposed to physical violence from a partner is rejected to be zero (combined coef. = −2.2, chi2 = 7.17, p < 0.05). This means that bisexuals who are exposed to physical violence from a partner are associated with a lower likelihood of reporting excellent health status rather than good health status.
In the very good health status model, bisexual people, regardless of whether having been exposed or not to intimate partner physical violence, have a higher probability of reporting excellent health status rather than very good (coef. = 3.46, p < 0.01) and bisexuals who experienced physical violence had a lower probability of reporting excellent health status (coef. = −5.47, p < 0.01); the linear test hypothesis of the combined coefficients of being bisexual and experiencing physical violence is rejected to be zero (combined coef. = −2.00; chi2 = 7.80, p < 0.05). This means that experiencing physical violence is associated with a lower probability of reporting excellent health status by bisexuals.

4. Discussion

IPV is a prominent public health concern for sexual minority people in many countries [11,12,13,14,15,16], but research has yet to identify the scope of risk in Colombia. We addressed this gap by examining the prevalence of physical, psychological, and sexual IPV among a national sample of sexual minority Colombians while also evaluating differences between sexual minority subgroups (bisexual vs. lesbian/gay). In addition, we assessed the prevalence of another distal minority stressor, witnessed discrimination, which has been relatively understudied compared to direct experiences of discrimination [48,49], and examined the relationship between both minority stressors and self-reported health. Our findings are congruent with past research on the experience and impact of these stressors across countries and within other Latin communities and provide vital information on factors that place sexual minority Colombians at risk of poor health despite having widespread access to healthcare.
Our study is the first to examine multiple forms of IPV among a national sample of sexual minority Colombians. The results show a higher risk of physical and sexual violence for bisexuals compared to lesbian or gay Colombians. This finding is consistent with the broader literature on IPV that shows bisexual people are at higher risk than people identifying with other sexual orientations, including heterosexuals [16,57,58,59,60,61]. Binegativity, which refers to the negative stereotypes and beliefs associated with bisexuality (e.g., promiscuity, attention-seeking, and perceived instability or confusion in their sexual orientation), is widespread in both heterosexual and sexual minority communities [16,61] and may heighten the risk of IPV and consequent health problems for bisexual people [16,57,58,59,60]. Scholars have argued that negative stereotypes, such as promiscuity, may lead to partner jealousy, which has been connected to a higher risk of IPV among heterosexual people [57]. People who are not bisexual often consider that bisexual partners are just going through a temporary stage and will inevitably leave their relationships when they realize they are gay and not bisexual [16]. This perception can contribute to stereotypes that bisexual individuals are unpredictable in their relationships [16,57,62], potentially causing insecurity among their partners and increasing the risk of IPV. Nevertheless, despite these prevalent beliefs, it is worth noting that stereotypes about bisexuality have found little support in empirical research [16,63,64].
We also observed a high prevalence of psychological IPV for all sexual minority participants, a finding consistent with past research in Colombia [5], Chile [65], and broader IVP studies’ findings showing that psychological IVP is far more prevalent than physical or sexual violence for LGBT people [66,67]. Ref. [66] examined the occurrence of perpetration and victimization in several types of IPV among lesbian women in Turkey, with the highest prevalence being psychological violence perpetration (66.4%) and victimization (63.1%). However, research has found differences in the prevalence of psychological partner violence across sexual orientations when examining behaviors with more granularity. Ref. [68] found that lesbians, compared to bisexual women, had a greater prevalence of victimization related to control behaviors and verbal aggression.
Finally, we show that the experiences of physical IPV and witnessing discrimination toward another sexual minority person may decrease the likelihood of reporting excellent health for participants. Numerous studies show that victims of IPV are at higher risk of reporting negative physical and mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, gastrointestinal disorders, substance abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, and unwanted pregnancy [15,67,69,70,71,72,73]. Our study contributes to this literature by demonstrating a connection between physical IPV and self-reported poorer health for sexual minority Colombians. We also demonstrate that witnessing a sexual minority person being discriminated against decreases the likelihood of reporting excellent health for participants. Although the impact of vicarious discrimination on health outcomes is understudied [50], our result is consistent with the research that exists on the topic, which shows witnessed discrimination to be associated with anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, and alcohol abuse [48,50].

5. Limitations

Using a national sample of Colombians, we have produced several novel findings imperative to increasing the knowledge base on the experiences of minority stressors among sexual minority Colombians and developing methods for preventing and intervening in the impact these stressors have on health outcomes. Yet, our study is not without limitations. The cross-sectional design implies that causality cannot be determined but does provide a strong foundation for future research. Furthermore, the use of self-reported health is broad and subjective. While researchers have demonstrated satisfactory overlap between self-reported health and more objective assessments (e.g., laboratory blood tests and doctor’s diagnosis), scholars have cautioned that self-reported health may better capture certain diseases (e.g., cardiovascular disease, mental health problems) and may be affected by a country’s public health and medical systems [74,75]. Finally, the modified Conflict Tactics Scale is one of the most commonly used measures of IPV, yet it was created and validated with heterosexual populations [76]. Thus, it may not be the most appropriate measure of IVP among sexual minorities due to their unique experiences.

6. Conclusions

The novel findings from the current study offer several directions for future research as well as considerations for prevention and intervention work with sexual minority Colombians. While we did not assess the role of gender in experiences of IPV within our sample, several studies find that sexual minorities assigned female at birth and bisexual women are at higher risk of experiencing IPV compared to other sexual identities, including heterosexuals [11,57,61,73]. Recent research outside of Colombia also shows a high prevalence of IPV among transgender and gender-diverse folks [77], including significantly higher rates for the population compared to cisgender people [78]. Additionally, this research shows that dating violence, in part, accounts for the statistically significant relationship between being transgender or gender diverse and suicidal ideation [79]. Thus, future research should build from our findings by examining the influence of gender on IPV rates among sexual and gender minority Colombians and the impact these experiences have on different health outcomes. Future research should continue to investigate witnessed discrimination as a prevalent experience among sexual minority Colombians that impacts their health outcomes by understanding constructs that facilitate this relationship. Scholars propose that cognitive and affective processes, such as group-based emotions, fear of direct discrimination, and perceived social exclusion, may connect witnessed discrimination to health outcomes, particularly suicidality [50].

7. Implications

Healthcare clinicians in Colombia should be mindful of the prevalence of IPV and witnessed discrimination when working with sexual minority clients. It is important to assess whether these experiences are relevant to a client and to identify any influence on health outcomes. While we only examined self-reported health, several studies have shown LGB-affirmative treatment modalities to reduce maladaptive behavioral health symptoms (e.g., alcohol misuse, depression, anxiety, and PTSD; [80,81,82]) that may be effective when adapted to the culturally relevant experiences of sexual minority Colombians. Bystander intervention may also prove to help prevent LGB mistreatment of sexual minorities. The bystander perspective prioritizes education and training programs to reduce mistreatment by helping concerned individuals develop awareness, personal responsibility, and empowerment to intervene when witnessing violence or harassment [83,84,85]. Bystander training and their evaluations have shown the effectiveness of observers acting to reduce mistreatment incidents based on sexual orientation and promote inclusive environments in schools, colleges, and workplaces [83,84,85,86,87]. However, scholars observe that men may be less willing to intervene than women when witnessing mistreatment based on sexual orientation and this may be particularly true in a patriarchal Colombian society that still cultivates masculine norms that are homophobic [88]. Therefore, some men may be involved in homophobic behavior or approve of it when observed. At the same time, others may wish to counter homophobic behavior but may fear social judgment for challenging behaviors related to masculinity norms [89]. In this sense, bystander training should be tailored to issues of masculinity and may be most effective when aimed at men and boys rather than women and girls.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.R.; data curation, P.R.; methodology, P.R. and A.M.; formal analysis, P.R. and A.M.; writing—original draft, P.R.; writing—review and editing, P.R., J.G. and A.M.; supervision, J.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Data for this study are anonymized and publicly available; thus, no ethical approval was needed.

Informed Consent Statement

Data for this study are anonymized and publicly available.

Data Availability Statement

Publicly available datasets were analyzed in this study. These data can be found here: https://dhsprogram.com/ (accessed on 15 June 2022).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Gallego Montes, G. Develar La Diversidad Familiar: Parejas del Mismo Sexo en El Eje Cafetero Colombiano; Primera edición; Libros de investigación; Editorial Universidad de Caldas: Manizales, Colombia, 2017; ISBN 978-958-759-157-6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Jaramillo-Jaramillo, J.; Restrepo-Pineda, J.E.; Pantoja-Bohórquez, C.P.; Martínez-Grisales, K.J. Participation in LGBTQ Organizations in Colombia: Motivations and Impacts. J. Gay Lesbian Soc. Serv. 2019, 31, 476–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Bernal, J.; Patiño, C. Documento de Diagnóstico Sobre La Situación de Discriminación de La Población LGBTI En Colombia; Departamento Nacional de Planeación: Bogotá, Colombia, 2020; p. 37.
  4. Choi, S.K.; Divsalar, S.; Flórez-Donado, J.; Kittle, K.; Lin, A.; Meyer, I.H.; Torres-Salazar, P. Stress, Health, and Wellbeing of LGBT People in Colombia: Results from a National Survey; The Colombia Collaborative Project; The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  5. Redondo-Pacheco, J.; Rey-García, P.A.; Ibarra-Mojica, A.N.; Luzardo-Briceño, M. Violencia intragénero entre parejas homosexuales en universitarios de Bucaramanga, Colombia. Univ. Salud 2021, 23, 217–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Botello-Peñaloza, H.A.; Guerrero-Rincón, I. Incidencia de La Violencia Física En La Población LGBT En Ecuador. Civilizar 2018, 18, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Corrales, J. The Expansion of LGBT Rights in Latin America and the Backlash. In The Oxford Handbook of Global LGBT and Sexual Diversity Politics; Bosia, M.J., McEvoy, S.M., Rahman, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2020; pp. 184–200. ISBN 978-0-19-067374-1. [Google Scholar]
  8. Swan, L.E.T.; Henry, R.S.; Smith, E.R.; Aguayo Arelis, A.; Rabago Barajas, B.V.; Perrin, P.B. Discrimination and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization and Perpetration among a Convenience Sample of LGBT Individuals in Latin America. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, NP8520–NP8537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pantoja Bohórquez, C.; Martínez Grisales, K.; Jaramillo Jaramillo, J.; Restrepo Pineda, J. De la invisibilidad al continuum de homofobia: Barreras socioculturales para las familias LGBTI en Colombia. Psicoperspectivas Individuo Soc. 2020, 19, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Charris, L.; Vélez, M.d.R.; Pérez, A. Devenir en Silencio: Exploración de la Violencia Intrafamiliar Hacia Personas LGBT y Entre Parejas del Mismo Sexo/Género en el Caribe Colombiano; Caribe Afirmativo: Barranquilla, Colombia, 2019; ISBN 978-958-59420-6-6. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bermea, A.M.; Van Eeden-Moorefield, B.; Khaw, L. A Systematic Review of Research on Intimate Partner Violence among Bisexual Women. J. Bisexuality 2018, 18, 399–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Cornu, C. Preventing and Addressing Homophobic and Transphobic Bullying in Education: A Human Rights–Based Approach Using the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. J. LGBT Youth 2016, 13, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Dworkin, E.R.; Krahé, B.; Zinzow, H. The Global Prevalence of Sexual Assault: A Systematic Review of International Research since 2010. Psychol. Violence 2021, 11, 497–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Edwards, K.M.; Sylaska, K.M.; Neal, A.M. Intimate Partner Violence among Sexual Minority Populations: A Critical Review of the Literature and Agenda for Future Research. Psychol. Violence 2015, 5, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Fedele, E.; Juster, R.-P.; Guay, S. Stigma and Mental Health of Sexual Minority Women Former Victims of Intimate Partner Violence. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP22732–NP22758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Smith, M.S.; Feinstein, B.A.; Mustanski, B.; Newcomb, M.E. Partner Gender and Binegativity Uniquely Impact Relationship Quality among Bisexual Men. J. Sex Res. 2023, 60, 359–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Brown, D.; Meinhart, M.; Poulton, C.; Stark, L. The Economic Burden of Intimate Partner Violence in Colombia: Estimated Health Costs Among Females Aged 13–24. J. Interpers. Violence 2023, 38, 3215–3243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cardenas, I.; Cuesta, L. The Association between Intimate Partner Violence and Multiple Partner Fertility among Colombian Women. Fam. Relat. 2022, 71, 1679–1697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gaviria, A.; Correa, A.; Davila, C.; Burgos, G.; Giron, S.; Osorio, E.; Corredor, J. Colombia Encuesta Nacional de Demografía y Salud 2015; Ministerio de Salud y Protección Social: Bogotá, Colombia, 2017; p. 427.
  20. Ocampo Otálvaro, L.E. Self-steem and adaptation victims of psychological abuse by partner. Psicol. Desde Caribe 2015, 32, 145–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Villegas, M.; Sanchez, N. Dependencia emocional en un grupo de mujeres denunciantes de maltrato de pareja. Textos Sentidos 2013, 7, 10–29. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zapata, L.; De la Rosa, K.; Barrios, D. Rojas Miguel Efecto de la Violencia y Esquemas Cognitivos en el Cortisol de Mujeres Violentadas por sus Parejas. Univ. Psychol. 2016, 15, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Meyer, I.H. Prejudice, Social Stress, and Mental Health in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: Conceptual Issues and Research Evidence. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2013, 1, 3–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Goldbach, J.T.; Tanner-Smith, E.E.; Bagwell, M.; Dunlap, S. Minority Stress and Substance Use in Sexual Minority Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. Prev. Sci. 2014, 15, 350–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hoy-Ellis, C.P. Minority Stress and Mental Health: A Review of the Literature. J. Homosex. 2023, 70, 806–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Nicholson, A.A.; Siegel, M.; Wolf, J.; Narikuzhy, S.; Roth, S.L.; Hatchard, T.; Lanius, R.A.; Schneider, M.; Lloyd, C.S.; McKinnon, M.C.; et al. A Systematic Review of the Neural Correlates of Sexual Minority Stress: Towards an Intersectional Minority Mosaic Framework with Implications for a Future Research Agenda. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2022, 13, 2002572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mann, A.M.; Naugle, A.E.; Lieberman, E. Experiential Avoidance and Emotion Dysregulation as Mediators in the LGBTQ Minority Stress Model. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2022, 51, 3443–3456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Mereish, E.H.; Miranda, R., Jr.; Liu, Y.; Hawthorne, D.J. A Daily Diary Study of Minority Stress and Negative and Positive Affect among Racially Diverse Sexual Minority Adolescents. J. Couns. Psychol. 2021, 68, 670–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rogers, M.L.; Hom, M.A.; Janakiraman, R.; Joiner, T.E. Examination of Minority Stress Pathways to Suicidal Ideation among Sexual Minority Adults: The Moderating Role of LGBT Community Connectedness. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2021, 8, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Pineda-Roa, C.A. Factores de Riesgo de Ideación Suicida En Una Muestra de Adolescentes y Jóvenes Colombianos Autoidentificados Como Homosexuales. Rev. Colomb. Psiquiatr. 2019, 48, 2–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dunn, T.L.; Gonzalez, C.A.; Costa, A.B.; Nardi, H.C.; Iantaffi, A. Does the Minority Stress Model Generalize to a Non-U.S. Sample? An Examination of Minority Stress and Resilience on Depressive Symptomatology among Sexual Minority Men in Two Urban Areas of Brazil. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2014, 1, 117–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chae, D.H.; Ayala, G. Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior among Latino and Asian Americans: Implications for Unfair Treatment and Psychological Distress. J. Sex Res. 2010, 47, 451–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ryan, C.; Huebner, D.; Diaz, R.M.; Sanchez, J. Family Rejection as a Predictor of Negative Health Outcomes in White and Latino Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Young Adults. Pediatrics 2009, 123, 346–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, M.J.; Thing, J.P.; Galvan, F.H.; Gonzalez, K.D.; Bluthenthal, R.N. Contextualising Family Microaggressions and Strategies of Resilience among Young Gay and Bisexual Men of Latino Heritage. Cult. Health Sex. 2017, 19, 107–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Noyola, N.; Sánchez, M.; Cardemil, E.V. Minority Stress and Coping among Sexual Diverse Latinxs. J. Latinx Psychol. 2020, 8, 58–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Schmitz, R.M.; Robinson, B.A.; Tabler, J.; Welch, B.; Rafaqut, S. LGBTQ+ Latino/a Young People’s Interpretations of Stigma and Mental Health: An Intersectional Minority Stress Perspective. Soc. Ment. Health 2020, 10, 163–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Callan, A.; Corbally, M.; McElvaney, R. A Scoping Review of Intimate Partner Violence as It Relates to the Experiences of Gay and Bisexual Men. Trauma Violence Abus. 2021, 22, 233–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lewis, R.J.; Milletich, R.J.; Kelley, M.L.; Woody, A. Minority Stress, Substance Use, and Intimate Partner Violence among Sexual Minority Women. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2012, 17, 247–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Garay-Villarroel, L.; Castrechini-Trotta, A.; Armadans-Tremolosa, I. Risk Factors Linked to Violence in Female Same-Sex Couples in Hispanic America: A Scoping Review. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zea, M.C.; Barnett, A.P.; del Río-González, A.M.; Parchem, B.; Pinho, V.; Le, H.-N.; Poppen, P.J. Experiences of Violence and Mental Health Outcomes among Colombian Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) and Transgender Women. J. Interpers. Violence 2022, 37, NP11991–NP12013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Buller, A.M.; Devries, K.M.; Howard, L.M.; Bacchus, L.J. Associations between Intimate Partner Violence and Health among Men Who Have Sex with Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. PLoS Med. 2014, 11, e1001609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Jauregui, J.C.; Mwochi, C.R.; Crawford, J.; Jadwin-Cakmak, L.; Okoth, C.; Onyango, D.P.; Harper, G.W. Experiences of Violence and Mental Health Concerns Among Sexual and Gender Minority Adults in Western Kenya. LGBT Health 2021, 8, 494–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muzny, C.A.; Pérez, A.E.; Eaton, E.F.; Agénor, M. Psychosocial Stressors and Sexual Health Among Southern African American Women Who Have Sex with Women. LGBT Health 2018, 5, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Reuter, T.R.; Newcomb, M.E.; Whitton, S.W.; Mustanski, B. Intimate Partner Violence Victimization in LGBT Young Adults: Demographic Differences and Associations with Health Behaviors. Psychol. Violence 2017, 7, 101–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Trombetta, T.; Rollè, L. Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration Among Sexual Minority People and Associated Factors: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2023, 20, 886–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Pereira, H.; Costa, P.A. Modeling the Impact of Social Discrimination on the Physical and Mental Health of Portuguese Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual People. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2016, 29, 205–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Gates, T.G. Assessing the Relationship between Outness at Work and Stigma Consciousness among LGB Workers in the Midwest and the Resulting Implications for Counselors. Couns. Psychol. Q. 2014, 27, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Woodford, M.R.; Han, Y.; Craig, S.; Lim, C.; Matney, M.M. Discrimination and Mental Health Among Sexual Minority College Students: The Type and Form of Discrimination Does Matter. J. Gay Lesbian Ment. Health 2014, 18, 142–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Eliason, M.J.; Dibble, S.L.; Robertson, P.A. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Physicians’ Experiences in the Workplace. J. Homosex. 2011, 58, 1355–1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Peterson, A.L.; Bender, A.M.; Sullivan, B.; Karver, M.S. Ambient Discrimination, Victimization, and Suicidality in a Non-Probability U.S. Sample of LGBTQ Adults. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2021, 50, 1003–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Cucunubá, Z.M.; Manne-Goehler, J.M.; Díaz, D.; Nouvellet, P.; Bernal, O.; Marchiol, A.; Basáñez, M.-G.; Conteh, L. How Universal Is Coverage and Access to Diagnosis and Treatment for Chagas Disease in Colombia? A Health Systems Analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 2017, 175, 187–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Giraldo, V.; Sobczyk, R.; Fernández-Niño, J.A.; Rojas-Botero, M.L.; Bojorquez, I. Prenatal Care of Venezuelans in Colombia: Migrants Navigating the Healthcare System. Rev. Saúde Pública 2021, 55, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alzate-Urrea, S.; Agudelo-Suarez, A.A.; Monsalve-Orrego, J.Y.; Londono-Candanoza, F.E.; Chinome-Florez, G.D.C.; Julio-Perez, A.L.; Arias-Durango, L.F.; Perez-Torres, K.M. Self-Perceived Discrimination in LGBT Population in Oral Health Services. Medellin, Colombia: A Qualitative Approach. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2016, 8, 152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Nieves-Lugo, K.; Barnett, A.; Pinho, V.; Reisen, C.; Poppen, P.; Zea, M.C. Sexual Migration and HIV Risk in a Sample of Brazilian, Colombian and Dominican Immigrant MSM Living in New York City. J. Immigr. Minor. Health 2019, 21, 115–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Straus, M.A. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactic (CT) scales. In Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8145 Families; Straus, M.A., Gelles, R.J., Eds.; Transaction Publishers: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 1990; pp. 29–47. [Google Scholar]
  56. Williams, R. Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata J. 2006, 6, 58–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Feinstein, B.A.; Dyar, C.; Bhatia, V.; Latack, J.A.; Davila, J. Conservative Beliefs, Attitudes toward Bisexuality, and Willingness to Engage in Romantic and Sexual Activities with a Bisexual Partner. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2016, 45, 1535–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Feinstein, B.A.; Ford, J.V.; Lattanner, M.R.; Bo, N.; Tu, W.; Dodge, B. The Role of Partner Gender in Bisexual Men’s Stigma-Related Experiences and Mental Health: Results from a Probability-Based Sample in the United States. Stigma Health 2023, 8, 179–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fuller, K.A.; Hovland, C.A. Bipositivity: Bisexual Persons’ Narratives of Acceptance and Support from Significant Others. J. Homosex. 2022, 69, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Green, K.E.; Feinstein, B.A. Substance Use in Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations: An Update on Empirical Research and Implications for Treatment. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2012, 26, 265–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Janislawski, K. Speaking the Unspoken: Abuse and Help Seeking Experiences of Bisexual Young Women in an Intimate Relationship with a Man; Open Access Te Herenga Waka-Victoria University of Wellington: Wellington, New Zealand, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  62. Matsick, J.L.; Rubin, J.D. Bisexual Prejudice among Lesbian and Gay People: Examining the Roles of Gender and Perceived Sexual Orientation. Psychol. Sex. Orientat. Gend. Divers. 2018, 5, 143–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Levine, E.C.; Herbenick, D.; Martinez, O.; Fu, T.-C.; Dodge, B. Open Relationships, Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy, and Monogamy Among U.S. Adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Arch. Sex. Behav. 2018, 47, 1439–1450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Rodriguez Rust, P.C. Bisexuality: The State of the Union. Annu. Rev. Sex Res. 2002, 13, 180–240. [Google Scholar]
  65. Gómez, F.; Barrientos, J.; Guzmán, M.; Cárdenas, M.; Bahamondes, J. Violencia de pareja en hombres gay y mujeres lesbianas chilenas: Un estudio exploratorio. Interdisciplinaria 2017, 34, 57–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Badenes-Rivera, L.; Binilla-Campos, A.; Devaney, J.; Bradbury-Jones, C.; Macy, R.; Overlin, C.; Holt, S. Domestic Violence and Abuse within Female Same-Sex Relationships; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2021; ISBN 978-0-367-68625-3. [Google Scholar]
  67. Domenech Del Rio, I.; Sirvent Garcia Del Valle, E. The Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence on Health: A Further Disaggregation of Psychological Violence-Evidence from Spain. Violence Women 2017, 23, 1771–1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Messinger, A.M. Invisible Victims: Same-Sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women Survey. J. Interpers. Violence 2011, 26, 2228–2243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Ayhan Balik, C.H.; Bilgin, H. Experiences of Minority Stress and Intimate Partner Violence Among Homosexual Women in Turkey. J. Interpers. Violence 2021, 36, 8984–9007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Barker, L.C.; Stewart, D.E.; Vigod, S.N. Intimate Partner Sexual Violence: An Often Overlooked Problem. J. Womens Health 2019, 28, 363–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Black, M.C. Intimate Partner Violence and Adverse Health Consequences: Implications for Clinicians. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2011, 5, 428–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lagdon, S.; Armour, C.; Stringer, M. Adult Experience of Mental Health Outcomes as a Result of Intimate Partner Violence Victimisation: A Systematic Review. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2014, 5, 24794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Lee, R.D.; Walters, M.L.; Hall, J.E.; Basile, K.C. Behavioral and Attitudinal Factors Differentiating Male Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators With and Without a History of Childhood Family Violence. J. Fam. Violence 2013, 28, 85–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Onur, I.; Velamuri, M. The Gap between Self-Reported and Objective Measures of Disease Status in India. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0202786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wu, S.; Wang, R.; Zhao, Y.; Ma, X.; Wu, M.; Yan, X.; He, J. The Relationship between Self-Rated Health and Objective Health Status: A Population-Based Study. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Stephenson, R.; Finneran, C. The IPV-GBM Scale: A New Scale to Measure Intimate Partner Violence among Gay and Bisexual Men. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e62592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Garthe, R.C.; Hidalgo, M.A.; Hereth, J.; Garofalo, R.; Reisner, S.L.; Mimiaga, M.J.; Kuhns, L. Prevalence and Risk Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence Among a Multisite Cohort of Young Transgender Women. LGBT Health 2018, 5, 333–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Garthe, R.C.; Kaur, A.; Rieger, A.; Blackburn, A.M.; Kim, S.; Goffnett, J. Dating Violence and Peer Victimization Among Male, Female, Transgender, and Gender-Expansive Youth. Pediatrics 2021, 147, e2020004317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Garthe, R.C.; Blackburn, A.M.; Kaur, A.; Sarol, J.N.; Goffnett, J.; Rieger, A.; Reinhart, C.; Smith, D.C. Suicidal Ideation Among Transgender and Gender Expansive Youth: Mechanisms of Risk. Transgender Health 2022, 7, 416–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Goldbach, J.T.; Rhoades, H.; Mamey, M.R.; Senese, J.; Karys, P.; Marsiglia, F.F. Reducing Behavioral Health Symptoms by Addressing Minority Stressors in LGBTQ Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Proud & Empowered. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 2315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pachankis, J.E.; Hatzenbuehler, M.L.; Rendina, H.J.; Safren, S.A.; Parsons, J.T. LGB-Affirmative Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Young Adult Gay and Bisexual Men: A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Transdiagnostic Minority Stress Approach. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2015, 83, 875–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pachankis, J.E.; Williams, S.L.; Behari, K.; Job, S.; McConocha, E.M.; Chaudoir, S.R. Brief Online Interventions for LGBTQ Young Adult Mental and Behavioral Health: A Randomized Controlled Trial in a High-Stigma, Low-Resource Context. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 2020, 88, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Dessel, A.B.; Goodman, K.D.; Woodford, M.R. LGBT Discrimination on Campus and Heterosexual Bystanders: Understanding Intentions to Intervene. J. Divers. High. Educ. 2017, 10, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Holland, K.J.; Rabelo, V.C.; Cortina, L. See Something, Do Something: Predicting Sexual Assault Bystander Intentions in the U.S. Military. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2016, 58, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Katz, J.; Federici, D.; Brown, D. Effects of Humor and Bystander Gender on Responses to Antigay Harassment. J. Homosex. 2022, 69, 947–966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bennett, S.; Banyard, V.L.; Garnhart, L. To Act or Not to Act, That Is the Question? Barriers and Facilitators of Bystander Intervention. J. Interpers. Violence 2014, 29, 476–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mujal, G.N.; Taylor, M.E.; Fry, J.L.; Gochez-Kerr, T.H.; Weaver, N.L. A Systematic Review of Bystander Interventions for the Prevention of Sexual Violence. Trauma Violence Abuse 2021, 22, 381–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pérez, A.; Correa, G.; Castañeda, W.; Plata, E. Raros... y Oficios: Diversidad Sexual y Mundo Laboral: Discriminación y Exclusión. Escuela Nacional Sindical, Corporación Caribe Afirmativo. 2013. Available online: https://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Colombia/ens/20140506064520/Raros_y_oficios.pdf (accessed on 28 January 2024).
  89. Poteat, V.P.; Vecho, O. Who Intervenes against Homophobic Behavior? Attributes That Distinguish Active Bystanders. J. Sch. Psychol. 2016, 54, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 593).
Table 1. Sample characteristics (n = 593).
Sociodemographic CharacteristicsFull Sample (%)n
Sex assigned at birth (men)58.8348
Sexual Orientation (Gay/Lesbian)56.4334
Education
      High school diploma34.4243
      More than high school59.4301
Age, years
      18–2858.1360
Marital Status
      Never in union64.7384
      Living union/married18.1197
      Divorced/widowed17.2102
Physical Disability (Yes)34.0200
Health Insurance (Yes)90.9539
Currently Employed (Yes)78.4466
Houshold Characteristics
Wealth Index
      Poor23.9124
      Middle20.88124
      Rich55.18327
Independent Variables
Intimate Partner Violence (Yes)
        Physical violence29.268
        Psychological violence60.4140
        Sexual violence3.79
Witnessed Discrimination (Yes)
        By neighbors53.2316
        In fun places27.6164
        At work31.8189
        By religious groups34.7206
        In health facilities7.243
        In school56.6336
        By friends55.9332
        By family50.7301
Dependent Variable
Health Status
      Excellent24.3144
      Very good10.864
      Good53.5317
      Regular/bad11.568
Table 2. Experiences of victimization and discrimination by sexual orientation.
Table 2. Experiences of victimization and discrimination by sexual orientation.
Sexual Orientation
Full Sample (%)Bisexual Person (%)Lesbian/Gay Person (%)
Victimization (Yes)
      Physical violence32.9940.4325.6***
      Sexual violence5.408.62.2***
      Psychological violence64.9465.9664.2
Discrimination (Yes)
      Neighbors57.953.861.9**
      Fun places27.223.730.8**
      Religious groups35.130.539.6**
      At work45.943.148.6**
      At school59.158.459.8
      By family52.851.254.4
      Health facilities6.97.95.7
*** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05.
Table 3. Factors associated with self-reported health status.
Table 3. Factors associated with self-reported health status.
Factors Associated with Health StatusbSE
Variables not violating the PL assumption
Sociodemographic Characteristics
    Physical disabilities (ref. no)−1.800.38***
    Wealth index (ref. poor)
    Middle income0.890.45**
    Discrimination
    At work−1.000.41**
Variables violating the PL assumption
Model for regular/bad Health Status
    Sexual Orientation (ref. LG)
    Bisexual2.160.79***
    Victimization
    Physical Violence × Sexual Orientation (ref. Lesbian/Gay)
    Yes × Bisexual−3.591.04***
Model for good Health Status
    Sexual Orientation (ref. LG)
    Bisexual−1.460.86
    Victimization
    Physical Violence × Sexual Orientation (ref. Lesbian/Gay)
    Yes × Bisexual−0.421.12
Model for very good Health Status
    Sexual Orientation (ref. LG)
    Bisexual3.461.1***
    Victimization
    Physical Violence × Sexual Orientation (ref. Lesbian/Gay)
    Yes × Bisexual−5.471.37***
Observations 593
SE: robust standard errors, *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.050.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Roldán, P.; Matijczak, A.; Goffnett, J. Negative Associations between Minority Stressors and Self-Reported Health Status among Sexual Minority Adults Living in Colombia. Healthcare 2024, 12, 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12040429

AMA Style

Roldán P, Matijczak A, Goffnett J. Negative Associations between Minority Stressors and Self-Reported Health Status among Sexual Minority Adults Living in Colombia. Healthcare. 2024; 12(4):429. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12040429

Chicago/Turabian Style

Roldán, Paola, Angela Matijczak, and Jacob Goffnett. 2024. "Negative Associations between Minority Stressors and Self-Reported Health Status among Sexual Minority Adults Living in Colombia" Healthcare 12, no. 4: 429. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12040429

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop