Suicide etiology in youth: Differences and similarities by sexual and gender minority status

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 ◽  
pp. 79-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tasseli McKay ◽  
Marcus Berzofsky ◽  
Justin Landwehr ◽  
Patrick Hsieh ◽  
Amanda Smith
2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 418-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Cathcart-Rake ◽  
Jennifer M. O’Connor ◽  
Jennifer L. Ridgeway ◽  
Carmen Radecki Breitkopf ◽  
Lois J. Mc Guire ◽  
...  

Background: Although national organizations advocate that health-care providers ask patients about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status—to learn, for example, about side effects of treatment and to understand patients’ social support—these conversations often do not occur. This study explored health-care providers’ reasons for having/not having these conversations. Methods: This single-institution study recruited health-care providers from medical oncology, hematology, radiation oncology, and gynecology. Face-to-face interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed qualitatively. Results: Three main themes emerged: (1) patient-centric reasons for discussing/not discussing sexual health and sexual and gender minority status (“So I think just the holistic viewpoint is important”); (2) health-care provider–centric reasons for discussing/not discussing these issues (“That’s going to take more time to talk about and to deal with…” or “I was raised orthodox, so this is not something we talk about…”; and (3) reasons that appeared to straddle both of the above themes (eg, acknowledgment of the sometimes taboo nature of these topics). Conclusion: Although many health-care providers favor talking with patients with cancer about sexual health and sexual and gender minority status, limited time, personal reluctance, and the taboo nature of these topics appear at times to hamper the initiation of these conversations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 301
Author(s):  
Angela Matijczak ◽  
Jennifer W. Applebaum ◽  
Shanna K. Kattari ◽  
Shelby E. McDonald

Sexual and gender minority individuals (SGM) face barriers to accessing COVID-19 testing and treatment services. Living with pets may pose an additional barrier due to concerns about pet welfare. This study investigates whether the relation between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding testing and treatment for COVID-19 varies as a function of attachment to pets and social support. Our sample consisted of 1453 adults (Mage = 39.4 years, 12.6% racial/ethnic minority; 21.8% SGM). We conducted simple and additive multiple moderation analyses to investigate the moderating effect of attachment to pets and social support on the relation between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding COVID-19 testing or treatment. Attachment to pets moderated the association between SGM status and the likelihood of delaying or avoiding COVID-19 testing in the simple (β = 0.82, Z = 2.09, p = 0.04) and additive multiple moderation analyses (β = 0.82, Z = 2.05, p = 0.04). SGM participants were more likely than non-SGM participants to report that they would delay or avoid testing when they reported high attachment to their pet (β = 0.75, OR = 2.11, Z = 2.51, p = 0.01) and low (β = 0.75, OR = 2.12, Z = 2.48, p = 0.01) or moderate (β = 0.73, OR = 2.08, Z = 2.14, p = 0.03) levels of social support.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 357-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Minden B. Sexton ◽  
Margaret T. Davis ◽  
RaeAnn E. Anderson ◽  
Diana C. Bennett ◽  
Erin Sparapani ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
pp. 169-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Renee M. Johnson ◽  
Sabriya Linton ◽  
Preben Bo Mortensen ◽  
Sari L. Reisner ◽  
Silvia Martins ◽  
...  

This chapter presents information about differences in risk for mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders across three demographic factors that are tied to social disadvantage: socioeconomic position, race/ethnicity, and sexual and gender minority status. It summarizes key results from studies of the general population, and presents information on prevalence and risk based on our analyses of national data sets. Systematic population subgroup differences exist. Persons in low socioeconomic position and sexual and gender minorities have higher odds of mental and behavioral disorders. Findings for racial/ethnic minorities were mixed. Although several studies showing that Black and Hispanic people have lower risk than Whites for mood, anxiety, and substance use disorders, research also shows that disorders among these groups are more severe and more persistent.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilson S. Figueroa ◽  
Peggy M. Zoccola ◽  
Andrew W. Manigault ◽  
Katrina R. Hamilton ◽  
Matt C. Scanlin ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document