Therapy sucks Archives - My Blog

Co-occurring mental illness, drug use, and medical multimorbidity among lesbian, gay, and bisexual middle-aged and older adults in the United States: a nationally representative study

admin — Wed, 28 Sep 2022 14:03:26 +0000

Published: 04 August 2020

BMC Public Health volume 20, Article number: 1123 (2020)

Abstract

Background

Older lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) adults are an underserved and understudied population that experience specific health disparities. The intersection of aging and chronic medical disease with a higher risk for substance use and mental illness may place older LGB adults at risk for co-occurring conditions and resulting comorbidity. Understanding multimorbidity among older LGB adults may help inform interventions to reduce disparities in health outcomes.

Methods

Data come from the 2015 to 2017 National Surveys on Drug Use and Health (n = 25,880). We first determined whether sexual orientation was associated with reporting: past-year drug use, mental illness, and/or 2 or more chronic medical diseases. We then determined whether sexual orientation was associated with reporting co-occurrence of these conditions. This was done using multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were stratified by gender.

Results

Compared to heterosexual men, gay men were at increased odds for reporting 2 or more chronic medical diseases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.48, 3.21), and gay (aOR = 1.79, 95% CI = 1.09, 2.93) and bisexual men (aOR = 3.53, 95% CI = 2.03, 6.14) were at increased odds for reporting mental illness. Gay men (aOR = 2.95, 95CI = 1.60, 5.49) and bisexual men (aOR = 2.84, 95% CI = 1.58, 5.08) were at increased odds of reporting co-occurring conditions. Compared to heterosexual women, bisexual women were at increased odds for past-year drug use (aOR = 4.20, 95% CI = 2.55, 6.93), reporting mental illness (aOR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.03, 3.67), and reporting co-occurring conditions (aOR = 3.25, 95% = 1.60, 6.62).

Conclusions

Middle-aged and older LGB adults in the United States are at high risk for experiencing co-occurring drug use, mental illness, and/or medical multimorbidity. Interventions for older sexual minority populations are needed to reduce disparities.

Background

Existing research demonstrates sexual minority disparities in mental illness, drug use (including substance use disorders [SUDs]), chronic health conditions, and health-related behaviors among adults [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Awareness of the health burdens experienced by sexual minorities, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) adults has increased, with their inclusion in the US Department of Health and Human Services’ Healthy People 2020 as an goal to improve the health of sexual minorities [7].

However, despite the aging of the US population, middle-aged and older LGBT adults remain an understudied group with notable gaps in aging research for this population [8]. An estimated 2 % of the US population age ≥ 65 identify as LGBT, and this population is likely to grow with a population increase of older adults and as more older adults may feel comfortable answering questions about sexual minority status and gender identity [9]. The health of middle-aged and older LGBT adults should be a priority as aging is the main risk factor for the presence of multiple chronic conditions, declines in physical and cognitive function, and increases in healthcare utilization [10]. One study examining data from the 2013–2014 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) found that among adults age ≥ 50 who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB), older lesbian or bisexual women were more likely to have more chronic diseases while older gay or bisexual men were more likely to have angina pectoris or cancer, and disability was higher among LGB older adults for both identities compared to older heterosexuals [3]. Other studies have shown higher rates of anxiety, depression, illicit opioid use, prescription tranquilizer misuse, and SUDs among middle-aged and older LGBT adults [9, 11, 12].

Conversely, another study from the 2013–2014 NHIS of adults age 65 and older found sexual minorities were more likely to report excellent or very good health compared to heterosexuals and found no significant difference in functional limitations or impairments [13]. However, a limitation is that many of these studies have small sample sizes or combine gay/lesbian with bisexual individuals into one category, and few research has examined the health of middle-aged and older LGBT adults through a multimorbidity framework.

Adults with medical multimorbidity, generally defined as ≥2 concurrent chronic conditions, have high rates of healthcare utilization and often receive poorly coordinated care [14, 15]. Chronic medical diseases, mental illness, and substance use frequently are interrelated and represent a compound multimorbidity placing individuals at even higher risk for adverse outcomes including increases in healthcare utilization [16]. Given that previous research shows high rates for mental illness, drug use, and medical multimorbidity among older LGB adults [3, 9], the goal of this current study was to examine differences regarding these three elements as well as the prevalence of having 2 or 3 concomitant problems using data from a nationally representative sample. As the population of older sexual minorities increases [9, 17], the objective for this study is to better understand the complexity of LGB adults’ health through a multimorbidity lens to help inform multidisciplinary clinical interventions in order to reduce health disparities in this population.

Methods

Study population

Aggregated data from the 2015–2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH) were analyzed. NSDUH is an ongoing cross-sectional survey of non-institutionalized individuals in the 50 US states and the District of Columbia [18]. Data are derived from nationally representative probability samples of populations living in households, noninstitutional group quarters, and shelters, obtained through four sampling stages. Surveys were administered via computer-assisted interviewing conducted by an interviewer and audio computer-assisted self-interviewing. Sample weights were provided by NSDUH to address unit- and individual-level non-response. Weights were adjusted to ensure that estimates were consistent with estimates provided by the US Census Bureau. Further details regarding sampling and survey methods can be found elsewhere [19]. The weighted interview response rates were 69.7% (2015), 68.4% (2016), and 67.1% (2017). This study focuses on adults age ≥ 50 (n = 25,880).

Study measures

Sexual orientation and sexual minority status

Participants were asked, “Which one of the following do you consider yourself to be?” and answer options were “heterosexual, that is, straight,” “lesbian or gay,” and “bisexual.” Participants could also report that they do not know or refuse to answer.

Drug use

Participants were asked about past-year use of various drugs. In these analyses, we considered past-year self-reported use of cannabis (among those reporting it was never recommended by a doctor), any other illegal drug use (i.e., cocaine, lysergic acid diethylamide [LSD], ecstasy, methamphetamine, ketamine, gamma hydroxybutyrate [GHB], phencyclidine [PCP], N, N-dimethyltryptamine [DMT], heroin), and misuse of prescription pain-relievers (prescription opioids) and tranquilizers (e.g., benzodiazepines aside from flurazepam, temazepam, and triazolam; muscle relaxants). Misuse was defined as using without one’s own prescription; using in greater amounts, more often, or for longer than directed; or use in any way not directed by a doctor. Participants were shown images of various opioid and tranquilizer pills to aid in their recall. We created a variable indicating past-year drug use, which included nonmedical cannabis use, illegal drug use, and prescription drug misuse to encompass the range of potentially unhealthy drug use (which could increase the risk for health consequences).

Mental illness

NSDUH includes an indicator for past-year mental illness developed and validated by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration and the National Institute of Mental Health, which is based on responses to a list of questions asked by NSDUH. The items include level of emotional distress, functional impairment due to emotional distress, suicidal thoughts, and major depression. Based on the responses an individual is given a dichotomous (yes/no) value for mild, moderate, and severe mental illness. Our definition for mental illness included meeting criteria for moderate or severe mental illness, which is equivalent to Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scores of < 60 (serious mental illness is GAF < 50; moderate mental illness is 50 ≤ GAF < 60) [20].

Medical multimorbidity

Participants were asked if they had ever had a doctor diagnose them with the following medical conditions: asthma, bronchitis/chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cancer, cirrhosis, diabetes, heart conditions, hepatitis B or C, high blood pressure, HIV/AIDS, and kidney disease. Similar to previous studies, we created a variable indicating medical disease multimorbidity which was defined as ≥2 chronic conditions reported [14, 15].

Composite of co-occurring conditions

We created a variable indicating the total number of the three interrelated conditions: any past-year drug use, any past-year mental illness, and medical multimorbidity. The composite was coded into 0, 1, and 2–3 conditions. Three conditions were combined with two conditions due to the low prevalence of those reporting all three outcomes.

Covariates

We included the following sociodemographic variables as covariates: age group (categorized by NSDUH as 50–64, ≥65), gender, race/ethnicity, education, annual family income, marital status, and whether they receive government assistance.

Statistical analysis

Similar to other studies focused on sexual minorities, all analyses were stratified by gender [2, 3]. First, we compared socio-demographic characteristics as well as specific drug use, mental illness, and medical multimorbidity characteristics according to sexual minority status for descriptive purposes. Comparisons were made using Rao-Scott chi-square as this bivariable test takes into account for the complex survey design [21]. We then compared the co-occurring outcome composite variable by heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in a similar manner. After examining bivariable associations we examined whether sexual minority status was related to reporting drug use, mental illness, and medical multimorbidity in a multivariable manner. Specifically, we examined whether sexual minority status was related to each outcome in three separate binary logistic regression models. Then, using multinomial logistic regression, we determined whether sexual minority status was related to reporting one condition, and 2–3 conditions, compared to reporting no conditions. Since only 413 participants reported “don’t know” or “refuse” as a response for the sexual orientation item, these cases were excluded from the main analyses which focused on the 11,876 men and 14,004 women identifying as heterosexual, gay/lesbian, or bisexual. However, we also conducted a supplemental analysis in which we included those who reported “don’t know” or “refuse” as a response in multivariable models (men n = 12,025, female n = 14,268). All models controlled for all socio-demographic covariates described above. We used sampling weights (provided by NSDUH) to account for selection probability, non-response, and population distribution, and data were analyzed using survey “svy” commands in Stata SE 13 (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX) which allowed us to account for the complex survey design [21]. We used imputation-revised variables when available to limit missing data as specified and provided by NSDUH [19]. Secondary analysis of these data was exempt for review by our Institutional Review Board.

Results

Most (97.0%) male participants identified as heterosexual, with 1.9% identifying as gay, and 1.1% identifying as bisexual. Similarly, 97.9% of women identified as heterosexual, 1.2% identified as lesbian, and 0.8% identified as bisexual. As is shown in Table 1, we estimate differences in demographics, drug use, mental illness, and chronic disease between older LGB respondents compared to their heterosexual counterparts stratified by gender. LGB individuals were younger with a higher percentage not married than heterosexuals. Gay men had the highest percentage with an earned a college degree. With regard to past-year drug use, bisexual women had the highest prevalence of nonmedical use of cannabis and misuse of opioids in the past year, with gay men having the highest prevalence of tranquilizers misuse. Bisexual men had the highest prevalence of mental illness and gay men reported the highest prevalence of HIV diagnosis, Hepatitis B or C diagnosis, and having 2 or more chronic diseases.

Background

Methods

Study population

Study measures

Sexual orientation and sexual minority status

Drug use

Mental illness

Medical multimorbidity

Composite of co-occurring conditions

Covariates

Statistical analysis

Results

Finally, in our supplemental analyses we found that all estimates were nearly identical for gay/lesbian and bisexual individuals when including those responding “don’t know” or “refuse” to the sexual orientation question. However, men and women responding “don’t know” were at lower odds for having ≥2 chronic medical conditions, and women who refused to respond were at lower odds for having ≥2 chronic medical conditions and for having a mental illness (Supplemental Table 1). In addition, men responding, “don’t know” and women refusing to respond were at lower odds for having one chronic condition (Supplemental Table 2).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is one of few studies of LGB disparities among a nationally representative sample of older adults in the US that examines multimorbidity and co-occurring conditions. We found that for both genders, middle-aged and older LGB adults had higher odds of having 2 or more co-occurring conditions (mental illness, drug use, or medical multimorbidity) compared to heterosexuals. These findings support results from other studies that identify several disparities in health and health-related risk factors among sexual minorities in the US. There are many social determinants that affect the health of sexual minorities in the US that fit with the minority stress model [22], where chronic stressors such as identity concealment, discrimination, and oppression [8], can lead to both mental illness and substance use [23], and ultimately to chronic medical disease. In addition, older LGB adults face the additional challenges of aging that increases the risks for chronic medical disease and social isolation [24]. Older LGB adults in particular often have barriers to social services and culturally competent healthcare providers [25]. Therefore older LGB adults are at elevated health risks and interventions focused on reducing the risk of poor health outcomes and a premature decline in function in this population should consider these conditions that may occur simultaneously.

An abundance of literature suggests that rates of substance use and SUDs are higher among LGBT persons compared to heterosexuals [11, 26, 27]; however, there remains very little data on prevalence among middle-aged and older adults. Our study is one of few that reports drug use patterns among older LGB adults especially by gender and sexual orientation. A recent study of aggregated LGB adults age 50 and older found a higher odds of nonmedical cannabis use and prescription misuse of opioids and tranquilizers [12]. For this study, we found a much higher prevalence of nonmedical use of cannabis specifically among bisexual women. In addition, bisexual women had the highest prevalence of prescription opioid misuse compared to all other groups. Gay men meanwhile had the highest prevalence of prescription tranquilizer misuse, and bisexual men had the highest prevalence of illegal drug use. More research is needed to understand patterns of substance use among middle-aged and older LGB adults as factors for increased drug use likely differ from younger LGB adults, who may be more likely to use “club drugs” (i.e. methamphetamine, ecstasy) than older LGB individuals [28, 29]. Several reasons may explain drug use in this population including stressors due to minority status, social isolation, as well as mental illness.

In this study, both male and female sexual minorities had a higher prevalence of mental illness compared to heterosexuals, with bisexual women having the highest prevalence. This also may be due to exposure to chronic stressors over the life course including identity concealment and the dual stigmatization of aging and belonging to a sexual minority group (and for some, also belonging to a racial/ethnic minority group). Our findings are largely consistent with several studies both in the US and in Canada that demonstrate the higher prevalence of depression, suicide attempts, and poorer mental health among older LGB compared to heterosexuals [9, 30,31,32]. The highest prevalence among bisexual men and women in our study may be due to lower levels of community connectedness compared to lesbian and gay men [9], which may increase isolation as one ages.

In terms of chronic disease and medical multimorbidity, our study adds new information regarding the health of middle-age and older adults among LGB adults. However, previous work on chronic disease burden in this population using national data combines adults identifying as bisexual and as gay or lesbian [3], and therefore it is difficult to make comparisons. Our study results found that gay men had the highest prevalence of multiple chronic diseases, possibly driven, in part, by also having the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS. While older bisexual women had a lower prevalence of medical multimorbidity, they were at increased risk for having more than one co-occurring condition. Therefore, although bisexual women may appear to have a more “favorable” medical multimorbidity profile if examined in isolation, they are in fact still at high risk for poor health outcomes through multiple co-existing factors. This is consistent with previous research in younger populations, which has found that bisexual women were less likely to engage in health-related behaviors, report poor health status or disability, use smokeless tobacco and opioids, and not seek healthcare because of cost [1, 33, 34]. Further work is needed to better understand the health needs of older bisexual women to reduce sexual minority health disparities.

The compound multimorbidity of having more than one condition (drug use, mental illness, and/or medical multimorbidity) has implications for better understanding determinants of health for older sexual minorities and how to develop clinical interventions to address care in the setting of complexity. One method of studying such multimorbidity is a syndemic framework with a focus on how conditions are interconnected and adversely affected by behavioral and psychosocial conditions [35,36,37]. Syndemic theory describes how two or more conditions interact synergistically to contribute to increased vulnerability and disease burden [38], and has been used commonly to describe risks among sexual minority groups [37, 39], Our results inform the use of syndemic theory for future research in this population as older sexual minorities are at higher risk for having co-occurring conditions, which are often interrelated. Future studies could use the syndemic framework to better delineate profiles of risk by examining synergistic interactions between conditions. In addition, for all older sexual minorities, future research needs to focus on how specific conditions and co-occurring conditions predict poor health outcomes and functional decline. Lastly, future research can adopt an intersectional lens [40] to further examine subgroup differences in sexual minority disparities for multimorbidity, including racial/ethnic and nativity differences regarding co-occurring conditions among older adults by gender, which is a priority [8].

Limitations

Self-report is a limitation, as such data are susceptible to limited recall and social desirability bias. In addition, NSDUH does not ask whether participants are transgender and studies are increasingly showing health disparities among gender minorities. Another limitation of our study is that 413 participants responded “don’t know” or “refuse” for the sexual orientation item. Our supplemental analyses including those responding to these categories suggest there is the possibility of bias for the outcomes of chronic medical conditions and mental illness. It is unknown which of these respondents legitimately do not know their identity, and it is unknown who actually might have identified as “other” sexuality, while others might have merely satisficed and chose such a response without thinking much about it. We highly recommend that surveys asking about sexual orientation provide an option for “other” sexuality [41]. However, the number of respondents not reporting a listed sexual orientation was low (< 1.6%) and does not appear to affect the main outcome of co-occurring conditions. Further, the sample sizes were too small to examine differences between racial/ethnic subgroups of LGB. The NSDUH also samples only the non-institutionalized US population, and therefore does not include adults who live in long-term care settings. Finally, the survey is cross-sectional, and different participants were sampled each year; therefore, this study cannot establish causality.

Conclusions

Older sexual minorities in the US are at heightened risk for the interrelated and compound morbidity from mental illness, drug use, and chronic medical diseases. These disparities are likely due to minority stressors and discrimination along with aging and increasing social isolation. These findings indicate the need to consider how co-occurring conditions can contribute to poor health outcomes in older sexual minority populations and the need for specific interventions within this diverse group.

The datasets used from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health for this study are publicly available at: https://www.datafiles.samhsa.gov/study-series/national-survey-drug-use-and-health-nsduh-nid13517

Abbreviations

aOR:

Adjusted odds ratioCI:

Confidence intervalGAF:

Global Assessment of FunctioningLGB:

Lesbian, gay, and bisexualLGBT:

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenderNHIS:

National Health Interview SurveyNSDUH:

National Survey on Drug Use and HealthSUD:

Substance use disorderUS:

United States

References

Cunningham TJ, Xu F, Town M. Prevalence of five health-related behaviors for chronic disease prevention among sexual and gender minority adults – 25 U.S. states and Guam, 2016. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2018;67:888–93.Article Google Scholar
Duncan DT, Zweig S, Hambrick HR, Palamar JJ. Sexual orientation disparities in prescription opioid misuse among U.S. adults. Am J Prev Med. 2019;56:17–26.Article Google Scholar
Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Kim HJ, Shui C, Bryan AEB. Chronic health conditions and key health indicators among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older US adults, 2013-2014. Am J Public Health. 2017;107:1332–8.Article Google Scholar
Gonzales G, Przedworski J, Henning-Smith C. Comparison of health and health risk factors between lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults and heterosexual adults in the United States: results from the National Health Interview Survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176:1344–51.Article Google Scholar
Jackson CL, Agénor M, Johnson DA, Austin SB, Kawachi I. Sexual orientation identity disparities in health behaviors, outcomes, and services use among men and women in the United States: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2016;16:807.Article Google Scholar
Ward BW, Joestl SS, Galinsky AM, Dahlhamer JM. Selected diagnosed chronic conditions by sexual orientation: a national study of US adults, 2013. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E192.Article Google Scholar
US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2020 objectives. http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/default.aspx. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.
Cahill SR. Research and policy change to improve healthcare and elder services for LGBT older adults. LGBT Health. 2017;4:381–3.Article Google Scholar
Yarns BC, Abrams JM, Meeks TW, Sewell DD. The mental health of older LGBT adults. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2016;18:60.Article Google Scholar
Cigolle CT, Langa KM, Kabeto MU, Tian Z, Blaum CS. Geriatric conditions and disability: the health and retirement study. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:156–64.Article Google Scholar
Capistrant BD, Nakash O. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults have higher prevalence of illicit opioid use than heterosexual adults: evidence from the National Survey on drug use and health, 2015–2017. LGBT Health. 2019;6:326–30.Article Google Scholar
Han BH, Miyoshi M, Palamar JJ. Substance use among middle-aged and older lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States, 2015 to 2017. J Gen Intern Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-05635-2.
Lunn MR, Cui W, Zack MM, Thompson WW, Blank MB, Yehia BR. Sociodemographic characteristics and health outcomes among lesbian, gay, and bisexual U.S. adults using healthy people 2020 leading health indicators. LGBT Health. 2017;4:283–94.Article Google Scholar
Boyd CM, Fortin M. Future of multimorbidity research: how should understanding of multimorbidity inform health system design? Public Health Rev. 2010;32:451–74.Article Google Scholar
Lehnert T, Heider D, Leicht H. Review: health care utilization and costs of elderly persons with multiple chronic conditions. Med Care Res Rev. 2011;68:387–420.Article Google Scholar
Han BH, Termine DJ, Moore AA, Sherman SE, Palamar JJ. Medical multimorbidity and drug use among adults in the United States. Prev Med Rep. 2018;12:214–9.Article Google Scholar
Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Kim HJ, McKenzie GL, Krinsky L, Emlet CA. Plan of action for real-world translation of LGBTQ health and aging research. LGBT Health. 2017;4(6):384–8.Article Google Scholar
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Reports and Detailed Tables From the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH). https://www.samhsa.gov/data/nsduh/reports-detailed-tables-2017-NSDUH.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Survey on drug use and health: alternative statistical models to predict mental illness. CBHSQ Methodology Report. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration; 2015.Google Scholar
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Alternative Statistical Models to Predict Mental Illness. Rockville: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (US); 2015. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK531554. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.Google Scholar
Heeringa S, West BT, Berglund PA. Applied survey data analysis. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2010.Book Google Scholar
Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129:674–97.Article Google Scholar
Mays VM, Cochran SD. Mental health correlates of perceived discrimination among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1869–76.CAS Article Google Scholar
Loucks EB, Berkman LF, Gruenewald TL, Seeman TE. Social integration is associated with fibrinogen concentration in elderly men. Psychosom Med. 2005;67:353–8.CAS Article Google Scholar
Cahill S, South K, Spade J. Outing age: public policy issues affecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender elders. Washington: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force; 2009. https://www.lgbtagingcenter.org/resources/pdfs/OutingAge2010.pdf. Accessed 31 Oct 2019.Google Scholar
McCabe SE, Hughes TL, Bostwick WB, West BT, Boyd CJ. Sexual orientation, substance use behaviors and substance dependence in the United States. Addiction. 2009;104:1333–45.Article Google Scholar
Drabble L, Midanik LT, Trocki K. Reports of alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems among homosexual, bisexual and heterosexual respondents: results from the 2000 National Alcohol Survey. J Stud Alcohol. 2005;66:111–20.Article Google Scholar
Halkitis PN, Palamar JJ, Mukherjee PP. Poly-club-drug use among gay and bisexual men: a longitudinal analysis. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2007;89:153–60.66.Article Google Scholar
Parsons JT, Kelly BC, Wells BE. Differences in club drug use between heterosexual and lesbian/bisexual females. Addict Behav. 2006;31:2344–9.Article Google Scholar
Sivakumaran G, Margolis R. Self-rated health by sexual orientation among middle-aged and older adults in Canada. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2019;gbz067.
D’Augelli A, Grossman A. Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. J Interpers Violence. 2001;16:1008–27.58.Article Google Scholar
Nuttbrock L, Hwahng S, Bockting W, et al. Psychiatric impact of gender-related abuse across the life course of male-to-female transgender populations. J Sex Res. 2010;47:12.Article Google Scholar
Dragon CN, Laffan AM, Erdem E, et al. Health indicators for older sexual minorities: National Health Interview Survey, 2013-2014. LGBT Health. 2017;4:398–403.Article Google Scholar
Blosnich JR, Farmer GW, Lee JG, Silenzio VM, Bowen DJ. Health inequalities among sexual minority adults: evidence from ten U.S. states, 2010. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:337–49.Article Google Scholar
Bhugra D, Ventriglio A. Mind and body: physical health needs of individuals with mental illness in the 21st century. World Psychiatry. 2017;16:47–8.Article Google Scholar
Singer MC, Erickson PI, Badiane L, Diaz R, Ortiz D, Abraham T, Nicolaysen AM. Syndemics, sex and the city: understanding sexually transmitted diseases in social and cultural context. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63:2010–21.Article Google Scholar
Stall R, Mills TC, Williamson J, et al. Association of co-occurring psychosocial health problems and increased vulnerability to HIV/AIDS among urban men who have sex with men. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:939–42.Article Google Scholar
Singer M, Clair S. Syndemics and public health: reconceptualizing disease in bio-social context. Med Anthropol Q. 2003;17:423–41.Article Google Scholar
Dyer TP, Shoptaw S, Guadamuz TE, et al. Application of syndemic theory to black men who have sex with men in the multicenter AIDS cohort study. J Urban Health. 2012;89:697–708.Article Google Scholar
Bowleg L. The problem with the phrase women and minorities: Intersectionality—an important theoretical framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2012;102:1267–73.Article Google Scholar
Griffin M, Callander D, Duncan DT, Palamar JJ. Differential risk for drug use by sexual minority status among electronic dance music party attendees in New York City. Subst Use Misuse. 2020;55:230–40.

Citation

Han, B.H., Duncan, D.T., Arcila-Mesa, M. et al. Co-occurring mental illness, drug use, and medical multimorbidity among lesbian, gay, and bisexual middle-aged and older adults in the United States: a nationally representative study. BMC Public Health 20, 1123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09210-6

External link to website

https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12889-020-09210-6

The post Co-occurring mental illness, drug use, and medical multimorbidity among lesbian, gay, and bisexual middle-aged and older adults in the United States: a nationally representative study appeared first on My Blog.

Why Therapy Is Broken

admin — Tue, 27 Sep 2022 14:49:23 +0000

Everyone is telling one another to “get help,” but few acknowledge that the practice is often flawed.

ELEANOR CUMMINS SEP 26, 2022 8:00 AM

Elanor Cummings Social Media

PHOTO-ILLUSTRATION: WIRED STAFF; GETTY IMAGES

AN HOUR A week in a shrink’s office is increasingly treated as a prerequisite for a healthy, happy life. There, we imagine, friends learn new coping skills and enemies realize the errors of their ways. Everyone is “healed.” Therapy has been marketed as a panacea for all kinds of issues, from fixing a bad personality to ending racism. Refusing to seek treatment becomes a red flag, while fluency in “therapy-speak” is all but mandatory. Professional help has even infiltrated our leisure hours: Reality TV shows like Couples Therapy, podcasts from This Is Dating to Where Should We Begin?, and “therapy in a box” card games, some actually designed by psychoanalysts, abound.

Unfortunately, as anyone who’s actually tried it can tell you, therapy often sucks.

Anywhere from 50 to 75 percent of people who go to therapy report some benefit—but at least 5 percent of clients get worse as a result of treatment. (For people from marginalized groups, harmful outcomes may be even more common.) The remainder report no clear benefit at all. Plenty of would-be clients go once and, feeling alienated, never return. Others keep trying, even as it becomes clear they aren’t really getting what they need, whatever that is.

But the American mental health care system has hardly acknowledged the existence of bad therapy, let alone taken steps to fix the problem. Instead, in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, which sent the demand for therapy soaring, the American Psychological Association and other organizations seemed to prioritize the quantity of available appointments over the quality of any resulting therapy. The rise of app-based mental health care, like BetterHelp and Talkspace, has only made this landscape harder to navigate.

The result is that everyone is telling everyone else to go to therapy, but “nobody really creates space to have dialog about, ‘OK, if it doesn’t work, let’s talk about why,’” says psychotherapist Ben Fineman, cohost of the Very Bad Therapy podcast with Carrie Wiita. That’s partly out of fear of uncertainty, which therapists dislike as much as anyone, and partly because reforming mental health care is complicated. But ignoring these shortcomings is only perpetuating the suffering therapy promises to heal.

THE OBSTACLES TO good therapy start when clients form expectations of what therapy will entail—which usually happens well before the first session. People often come in with their own “secret agendas,” says Jeffrey Kottler, author of On Being a Therapist. “They’re being blackmailed, or they want leverage, or they’re seeking reassurance.” Even for those that have reasonable expectations and feel eager to put in the work, the process by which transformation unfolds is murky, and therapists aren’t always the best at explaining what is to come.

All psychic healers strive to “clarify symptoms and problems, inspire hope, facilitate experiences of success or mastery, and stir the patient’s emotions,” as Jerome Frank wrote in his 1961 classic Persuasion and Healing. But the fault lines between professional and public conceptions of therapy are numerous. For example, research suggests that about half of therapy-goers will experience improvement in 15 to 20 sessions. But one study found that the majority of people incorrectly assume they need just six sessions to resolve their issue. Similar gaps in understanding emerge in views on self-disclosure by therapists, the value of negative feedback to therapists, and the purpose of therapy itself.

And while therapy is commonly discussed as if it were a single entity, there are hundreds of distinct theoretical models currently used, from EMDR to Gestalt to CBT. Depending on whom you ask, at least 20 orientations fly under the banner of psychoanalysis alone. Each provides its own model of the brain or mind, the nature of distress, and the path to healing—in other words, its own value system.

Even so, therapists commonly mix and match a number of techniques learned in graduate school, from early mentors, and at weekend workshops. This is done mostly for pragmatic reasons, as every client needs a slightly different form of support. The practice has also been supported by the “Dodo bird verdict” of psychotherapeutic models—named for the Lewis Carroll line, “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes”—which claims that all models are equally helpful or unhelpful.

But it’s unclear if the verdict holds up, says Alex Williams, program director of psychology at the University of Kansas. In fact, very little about contemporary psychotherapy is actually backed by credible evidence. In a meta-review of 70 purported empirically supported treatments, Williams and his colleagues found only 20 percent of the interventions are based on reliable studies. An additional 30 percent were in the “murky middle,” and fully half of the treatments under review didn’t have the evidence their boosters thought they did. For Williams, contemporary therapy is resting on more of a “don’t-know bird verdict.”

Some therapies do appear to be better than others for specific conditions, like exposure therapy for phobias. Others, from conversion therapy to attachment therapy, appear to be dangerous in any context. But even when the underlying method is credible, “most therapists don’t follow a manualized treatment protocol,” says psychotherapist Kirk Honda, host of the podcast and YouTube channel Psychology in Seattle. That makes the line from a controlled trial (where evidence is developed) to the therapist’s couch (where evidence is acted upon) squiggly at best.

To save themselves from analysis paralysis, many therapists fall back on the “common factors,” which suggest that good therapy can be distilled down to empathy, a clear shared goal, positive regard and affirmation, and the like. To date, the so-called “therapeutic alliance” between patient and provider appears to be one of the most important components of successful therapy. Therapy is indeed a “relational art,” and the success (or failure) happens in the unreplicable dynamic between two people. Unfortunately, that insight hasn’t made these alliances any easier to foster.

IN THE US, finding a therapist—any therapist—can feel as difficult as the problem that drove you to therapy in the first place. Many communities have only one or a handful of mental health professionals to choose from, and some American counties have no psychiatrist (who can prescribe medication) at all. What’s more, private-practice therapists rarely if ever accept insurance, so many clients pay out of pocket—a luxury few can afford.

Even for people who have the time and money to choose, it’s hard to know what to look for. In the absence of a referral or personal recommendation, many people turn to “Find a Therapist” databases from their insurance, ZocDoc, or Psychology Today. But current systems are, understandably, designed to prioritize things like cost, proximity, and availability of services—not expertise in a particular problem or a good fit between patient and provider.

Consider a person who is seeking help for time-consuming rituals. They are likely to end up talking to the next-available therapist about more obvious issues, like the depression or anxiety their rituals cause. Even if this person has a hunch that a label like OCD might apply, and searches for the condition by “issue” for OCD on the Psychology Today site, they will receive dozens of results for therapists who have tagged OCD on their provider pages but don’t actually employ the gold-standard treatment, exposure response prevention. To find a provider with expertise in ERP, the client would have to know what condition they have and what intervention they require, then deliberately search for providers by “type” of therapy offered instead. Even then, they may find that the therapist they’re paired with has all the right training but is untrustworthy, unprofessional, or unlikable.

When time is segmented into 50-minute billable increments, clients can’t afford to waste a second. But building an alliance with a therapist—or failing to do so—is often slow going. Some individuals seem supremely skilled at this work: In a 2003 study, psychologist John Okiishi found that, in a sample of 91 therapists, the top performers enabled their clients to improve 10 times faster than everyone else. But even a supershrink would, inevitably, struggle to help certain people.

When a client isn’t making progress, the therapist should be the one to point out the problems and offer a back-up plan. In situations where the alliance cannot be repaired (or never formed in the first place), a therapist will typically refer their client out to a colleague who might be a better fit. But in the US, financial incentives can get in the way. Kottler says therapists may be loath to let a source of revenue walk out the door; after all, their malpractice insurance, rent, and other payments are due. “There have been times in my life, honestly, when my income stream has gone down, and I really need to keep clients and I’m not getting many new referrals,” Kottler says. “And I won’t easily let a client go.”

Often, that leaves clients in the position of calling the whole thing off. Some end up ghosting. Others tell their therapist that they’re doing better even when they aren’t. Rare is the client who’s able to speak the truth: “You just aren’t helping me.”

ELIMINATING BAD THERAPY entirely, whether in person or online, is a quixotic goal. But improvement starts with freeing both clients and therapists from getting trapped in the current “first come, first serve” model.

Even in the absence of universal health care, government support for mental health could help people access therapy at no cost to them. Without the burden of out-of-pocket fees, patients would be able to experiment. If a therapeutic alliance doesn’t form on the first try, they’re able to find another. “I joke with patients, it’s kind of like speed-dating,” says Jessi Gold, an assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at Washington University in St. Louis. Put another way: “We’re the medicine,” Gold says. And what do you do if your medicine isn’t working? You try a new one.

Instead of leaving people to navigate mental health care themselves, Honda thinks government funding could also be used to create a system for pairing clients and therapists—perhaps a combination of algorithmic sorting and trained professionals who serve as a resource to both parties. That way, everyone would have a first, second, and third option for therapy already lined up, with a point person to turn to should problems arise.

Funding could also make a difference further upstream, by subsidizing psychotherapeutic education. Aspiring therapists of color, LGBTQ therapists, therapists from low-income backgrounds, and others with marginalized identities in particular should be supported as they enter a field that is predominantly white and relatively wealthy. When coupled with proactive efforts to decolonize psychotherapy, intentional investment in diversity could help to satisfy clients’ growing desire for cultural competence in all its forms.

Regulation may also be in order. Right now, American therapists are primarily accountable to their state licensing board, but these organizations tend to respond only to ethical violations in the strictest sense. At the same time, there is no federal agency responsible for regulating specific treatments, even those that consistently do real harm. Funding research, putting evidence-based regulations in place, and curtailing misleading marketing practices could save many clients unnecessary frustration.

In the interim, better technical education for therapists could help them navigate a post-pandemic, late-capitalist, and climate-changed country. Many of the most common “presenting problems” are grief and trauma, yet these topics are not currently a core part of many school’s curriculum, Honda says. At the same time, many therapists are reluctant to adopt new innovations as they try (and often fail) to balance the art and science inherent to their work. For example, a 2018 trial showed that routine outcome surveys for clients led to better outcomes, yet the vast majority of therapists remain skeptical of the value of collecting such data.

For now, it’s important to know that there probably aren’t many truly terrible therapists—just therapists who are bad for you. So while the world waits for a revolution in mental health care, consider getting your break-up speech ready.

https://www.wired.com/story/therapy-sucks/

Eleanor Cummins is a freelance science journalist writing about death, disaster, and bowling balls. She is an adjunct professor at New York University’s Science, Health, and Environmental Reporting Program.

Subscribe to WIRED and stay smart with more of your favorite Ideas writers.

The post Why Therapy Is Broken appeared first on My Blog.