Men who have sex with men and women (MSMW) have been shown in cross-sectional studies to suffer HIV-related health disparities above and beyond those found among men who have sex with men only (MSMO). We conducted a secondary data analysis over a 7-year time frame of participants in the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Study (MACS), a longstanding prospective cohort study, to examine whether MSMW had persistently higher rates of depression symptoms, polydrug use, and (among HIV positive MSM) HIV viral load levels compared with MSMO.
Men were behaviorally defined as bisexual if they reported sexual activity with at least one male and one female partner between study waves 38-50. We used generalized mixed modeling with repeated measures to test differences in CES-D score, polydrug use, and viral load between sexually active MSMO (n=111) and MSMW (n=1514), adjusting for age, income, and race/ethnicity, and recent seroconversion.
MSMW were significantly more likely than MSMO to have higher CES-D scores, polydrug use, and viral load levels (all p-values <.01). Outcome trajectories did not differ significantly over time between these groups. Black and Hispanic HIV positive MSMW had higher viral load levels relative to White HIV positive MSMW (p-values<.01).
Compared with MSMO, MSMW in the MACS suffer from profound and persistent HIV-related health disparities across biological, behavioral, and psychosocial domains. Further qualitative and quantitative research contextualizing the pathways underlying these disparities is recommended for intervention development targeting MSMW at risk for HIV acquisition and transmission.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Lesbians and gay men have disproportionately high rates of depression and anxiety, and report lower satisfaction with treatments. In part, this may be because many health care options marginalize them by assuming heterosexuality, or misunderstand and fail to respond to the challenges specifically faced by these groups. E-therapies have particular potential to respond to the mental health needs of lesbians and gay men, but there is little research to determine whether they do so, or how they might be improved.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 07/2014; 16(7):e166. DOI:10.2196/jmir.3529 · 3.43 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background: E-therapies for depression and anxiety rarely account for lesbian and gay users. This is despite lesbians and gay men being at heightened risk of mood disorders and likely to benefit from having access to tailored self-help resources.
Objective: We sought to determine how e-therapies for depression and anxiety could be improved to address the therapeutic needs of lesbians and gay men.
Methods: We conducted eight focus groups with lesbians and gay men aged 18 years and older. Focus groups were presented with key modules from the popular e-therapy “MoodGYM”. They were asked to evaluate the inclusiveness and relevance of these modules for lesbians and gay men and to think about ways that e-therapies in general could be modified. The focus groups were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic analysis approach to identify major themes.
Results: The focus groups indicated that some but not all aspects of MoodGYM were suitable, and suggested ways of improving e-therapies for lesbian and gay users. Suggestions included avoiding language or examples that assumed or implied users were heterosexual, improving inclusiveness by representing non-heterosexual relationships, providing referrals to specialized support services and addressing stigma-related stress, such as “coming out” and experiences of discrimination and harassment. Focus group participants suggested that dedicated e-therapies for lesbians and gay men should be developed or general e-therapies be made more inclusive by using adaptive logic to deliver content appropriate for a user’s sexual identity.
Conclusions: Findings from this study offer in-depth guidance for developing e-therapies that more effectively address mental health problems among lesbians and gay men.
Journal of Medical Internet Research 03/2015; 17(3):e66. DOI:10.2196/jmir.4013 · 3.43 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Current intimate relationship characteristics, including gender and number of partner(s), may affect one's visibility as a bisexual individual and the minority stressors they experience, which may in turn influence their health. The current study tested four hypotheses: 1) minority stressors vary by current intimate relationship status; 2) higher minority stressors are associated with higher depressive symptoms and alcohol-related outcomes; 3) depressive symptoms and alcohol-related outcomes vary by current intimate relationship status; and 4) minority stressors will mediate differences in these outcomes. Participants included 470 self-identified bisexual women (65 % Caucasian, mean age: 21) from a sample of sexual minority women recruited from different geographic regions in the United States through advertisements on social networking sites and Craigslist. Participants completed a 45 min survey. Respondents with single partners were first grouped by partner gender (male partner: n=282; female partner: n=56). Second, women were grouped by partner gender/ number (single female/male partner: n=338; women with multiple female and male partners: n=132). Women with single male partners and women with multiple male and female partners exhibited elevated experienced bi-negativity and differences in outness (H1). Experienced and internalized bi-negativity were associated with health outcomes, but not outness (H2). Differences in outcomes emerged by partner number and partner number/gender (H3); these differences were mediated by experienced bi-negativity (H4). These results suggest that experiences of discrimination may underlie differences in health related to bisexual women's relationship structure and highlight the importance of evaluating women's relational context as well as sexual identification in understanding health risk behaviors.
Sex Roles 06/2015; 73(1). DOI:10.1007/s11199-015-0483-z · 1.47 Impact Factor
Note: This list is based on the publications in our database and might not be exhaustive.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.