Search Results (5)

This study focused on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the marginalized populations—specifically Black and Indigenous people as well as People of Color (BIPOC) compared to White older adults and LGBT individuals compared to heterosexual older adults. Data were derived from our national online survey of Canadians aged 55+, conducted from 10 August to 10 October 2020. The survey explored the influence of COVID-19 on lifestyle changes, well-being, and planning for the future. Our sample comprised 4292 respondents. We compared sets of dichotomous variables with White vs. BIPOC, LGBT vs. heterosexual, and LGBT White vs. LGBT BIPOC respondents. Significantly more BIPOC than White individuals reported changes in accessing food (44.3% vs. 33.2%) and in family income (53.9% vs. 38.9%) and fewer reported feeling accepted and happy, and more felt isolated and judged. Significantly more LGBT than heterosexual respondents reported changes in routines and in accessing social support, medical and mental health care and more feeling depressed, lonely, anxious, and sad. More LGBT–BIPOC than LGBT–White respondents reported changes in access to food (66.7 vs. 30.6, p < 0.001); in family income (66.7 vs. 41.5, p < 0.005); and in access to mental health care (38.5 vs. 24.0, p < 0.05). The only difference in emotional response to COVID-19 was that more BIPOC–LGBT than White–LGBT respondents reported feeling judged (25.9 vs. 14.5, p < 0.05). These findings reflect a complex mix of the effects of marginalization upon BIPOC and LGBT older adults, revealing both hardship and hardiness and warranting further research. Full article

Blunt use (co-use of tobacco and marijuana) is a growing phenomenon among youth and disproportionately affects minority populations. LGBT+ populations are significantly more likely to use marijuana and tobacco, but this relationship has yet to be examined among LGBT+ adolescents. This analysis aimed to investigate past-year blunt use among a national sample of youth and delineate the differences between non-LGBT and LGBT+ youth. We used Wave 2 of the Population and Tobacco Health (PATH) study. We analyzed data from 7518 youth, comparing past-year blunt use between LGBT+ and non-LGBT youth, controlling for biological sex, race, and age using weighted logistic regression models. Greater than 1 in 10 youth (10.6%) reported using blunts in the past year. More than one in five (21.6%) LGBT+ youth reported using blunts in the past year. There were no significant differences between boys and girls. Older youth (17 years old) were more likely to use blunts in the past year (aPR: 3.04, 95% CI 2.48, 3.79) than younger youth. Compared with non-LGBT youth, LGBT+ youth were 2.17 times (95% CI 1.86, 2.54) more likely to report using blunts in the past year. Blunt use and its respective impact on health outcomes among developing youth are of concern to public health. These findings demonstrate that certain subgroups of youth are more at risk for use and emphasize the need for tailored interventions to mitigate initiation and current use, given that one of the goals of the Healthy People 2030 initiative is to “Improve the health, safety, and well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals”. Full article

Background: With increasing age, the health status of older individuals commonly deteriorates and their care needs greatly increase. Therefore, many individuals are in need for formal or informal long-term care. In order to plan suitable long-term care settings, it is important to know the long-term care preferences of an ageing population (both heterosexuals and sexual minorities). The aim of this study is to systematically review the literature for evidence on preferences regarding long-term care and the potential differences with regard to sexual orientation. Methods and analysis: This study protocol for a systematic review is reported according to the PRISMA-P guidelines. A comprehensive search of published studies will be conducted using PubMed, Web of Science and PsycINFO bibliographic databases. Following predefined inclusion criteria, two authors will screen the titles and abstracts of the studies independently. Afterwards, we will obtain and screen full-text articles of eligible studies using the predefined inclusion criteria. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or consultation with a third researcher. Data will be extracted and synthesised. Extracted data will be categorised based on study design, type of long-term care preferences and the group (sexual orientation) which is addressed. The quality of reporting of the studies included will be assessed. Full article

Internationally, there is increasing recognition that lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) populations experience substantial public health inequalities and require interventions to address these inequalities, yet data on this population is often not routinely collected. This paper considers the case study of the UK, where there are proposals to improve government and health data collection on LGBT populations, but also a degree of apparent uncertainty over the purpose and relevance of information about LGBT status in healthcare. This paper applies a health capabilities framework, arguing that the value of health information about LGBT status should be assessed according to whether it improves LGBT people’s capability to achieve good health. We draw upon 36 older LGBT people’s qualitative accounts of disclosing LGBT status within UK general practice healthcare. Participants’ accounts of the benefits and risks of disclosure could be mapped against multiple domains of capability, including those that closely align with biomedical accounts (e.g., longevity and physical health), but also more holistic considerations (e.g., emotion and affiliation). However, across all domains, individuals tend to assess capabilities at an individual level, with relatively little reference to population-level impact of disclosure. Clearer articulation of the benefits of disclosure and data collection for the collective capabilities of LGBT populations may be a beneficial strategy for improving the quality of information on LGBT populations. Full article

Background: Older lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) residents are often invisible in long-term care settings. This article presents findings from a community-based action research project, which attempted to address this invisibility through co-produced research with LGBT community members. Particular Question: What conditions enable co-produced research to emerge in long-term residential care settings for older people? Aims of Project: To analyse outcomes and challenges of action-oriented, co-produced research in the given context. In particular, we explore how co-production as a collaborative approach to action-orientated research can emerge during the research/fieldwork process; and reflect critically on the ethics and effectiveness of this approach in advancing inclusion in context. Methods: The project was implemented across six residential care homes in England. Reflections are based on qualitative evaluation data gathered pre- and post-project, which includes 37 interviews with care home staff, managers and community advisors (two of whom are co-authors). Results and Conclusions: We discuss how the co-production turn emerged during research and evaluate how the politics of this approach helped advance inclusion—itself crucial to well-being. We argue for the value of co-produced research in instigating organizational change in older people’s care environments and of non-didactic storytelling in LGBT awareness-raising amongst staff. Full article