Jan 092017
 

Most people today know that cigarette smoking is bad for you. The mantra is drilled into children in school. Tobacco causes COPD and the vast majority of cancers, especially lung cancers. It raises the risk for heart disease. Asthma, diabetes, and osteoporosis are made worse by tobacco. And for pregnant women, tobacco causes birth defects. Children exposed to tobacco are more prone to asthma, ear infectious, and death by Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. (Source)

The negative effects of cigarettes comes from the chemicals in the tobacco plant plus chemicals added by the cigarette manufacturer. It’s not all added by the manufacturer. Hand-made cigarettes, snuff, and cigars still cause disease. Unfortunately tobacco also contains nicotine. Nicotine by itself is relatively harmless, but it is highly addictive. It’s also a stimulant, giving a “high” of its own that many find temporarily helpful as they deal with the stresses of life. Physical and psychological addiction together make it very difficult to quit smoking.

A nicotine patch, one of the main aids in quitting smoking

A nicotine patch, one of the main aids in quitting smoking

Quitting is possible. No matter how many packs a smoker has smoked, their health improves when they quit. For many it can take multiple tries before they’re able to quit for good. And I’m sure you’ve seen the advertisements; there are medications and therapies out there to help those who are interested.

Because smoking is such a huge public health issue, the United States government included tobacco use in its Healthy People 2020 project. Healthy People is a set of goals to improve the health of the US population. In 2008 when the project started 20.8% of US adults smoked. They want to reduce that number to 12% by the year 2020.

Sound ambitious? Perhaps. But on November 11th, 2016 the Centers for Disease Control released new data on smoking rates in the US. This included data from 2005 to the 2015 National Health Interview Survey. So we can see the progress for ourselves!

But wait, why am I talking about smoking on a blog dedicated to gender and sexual minority healthy? Because LGBT people smoke more than our heterosexual and cisgender neighbors. And in this new report, the CDC actually included information on LGB smoking. Let’s take a look!

The Data

Good news, everyone!

Graph of the decline in smoking rate20.9% of adults in the United States smoked in 2005. By 2014, only 16.8% smoked. That fell to 15.1% by 2015! And among those who currently smoke, fewer reported smoking every day; from 80.8% of smokers being daily smokers in 2005 to 75.7% in 2015. And the number of cigarettes smoked per day dropped too; from 16.7 in 2005 to 14.2 in 2015. So not only are fewer people smoking overall, but those who are smokers are smoking less.

Unfortunately smoking is not so low in all groups. When the CDC looked at subgroups, there were some stark differences. Here are the groups who smoked the most in their analysis:

  • Individuals experiencing serious psychological distress: 40.6% vs 14% who did not
  • Those with a GED: 34.1% vs 3.6% of those with a college degree
  • Medicaid enrollees (27.8%) and people without insurance (27.4%), vs those with private insurance (11.1%) or Medicare only (8.9%). A reminder for international audiences — Medicaid is the US public health insurance for the poor. Medicare is the equivalent for those over the age of 65 or with certain health conditions
  • The poor: 26.1% vs 13.9%
  • People with disabilities: 21.5% vs 13.8%
  • Lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: 20.6% vs 14.9%. (Transgender people were not included in this analysis)
  • Men more than women: 16.7% vs 13.6%

In other words: People with poor mental health, the poor, the undereducated, the disabled, and minorities are more likely to be smokers. And lesbian, gay, and bisexual people are more likely to be smokers than their heterosexual neighbors. 1 in 5 LGB people smoke. 1 in 6 heterosexual people smoke.

Unfortunately we can’t see how the percentages have changed for LGB people. The survey in 2005 did not include sexual orientation. But even from this one snippet of data we know that LGB people are indeed at risk.

But why?

Why is there this difference in smoking rates?

The truth is that we don’t know for certain. But here are some possibilities:

  • Stress. Smoking, like other substance use, is something that many people try to use to control the stress in their lives. The brief “high” of the nicotine helps for a short time. Unfortunately it’s not the most effective long-term solution. But being part of a minority is stressful, so we’d expect to see more minorities smoking simply because of that stress.
  • Advertising. The LGBT community has been specifically targeted in some smoking advertisements.
  • Lack of targeted anti-smoking campaigns and resources
  • Lack of health insurance and access to physicians in order to access help in quitting

And likely there are many other reasons.

What can we do about smoking?

One LGBT-targeted ad to quit smoking

One LGBT-targeted ad to quit smoking

First, and most importantly, is to quit smoking yourself if you smoke. Resources specific to LGBT communities include smokefree.gov and lgbttobacco.org. If you don’t smoke but a loved one does, support them in their efforts to quit.

As a community we can provide smoke-free spaces. Smoke-free bars are important, as are social events that aren’t in bars. We can choose imagery without cigarettes and remove cigarette-including glamour shots from our community spaces.

More broadly, emotional and financial support are important factors involved with smoking. As we saw, people who are emotionally struggling are more likely to be smokers. Supporting each other as a community may help, and with that help preventing smoking and quitting may become more feasible.

Lastly, vote if you can. Policy-level decisions can and do impact smoking rates! For example, raising taxes on cigarettes increases the number of people who quit in a community. And funding for quitting programs often comes from government sources. So make sure you vote (if you can)!

Want to read more on the topic? The original CDC paper is publicly available. Healthy People 2020 also has more information on smoking.

Jun 272016
 

Welcome back to Open Minded Health Promotion! This week is all about how cisgender women who have sex with women, including lesbian and bisexual women, can maximize their health. As a reminder — these are all in addition to health promotion activities that apply to most people, like colon cancer screening at age 50.

Woman-and-woman-icon.svgAll cisgender women who have sex with women should consider…

  • Talk with their physician about their physical and mental health
  • Practice safer sex where possible to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections. Some sexually transmitted infections can be passed between women. If sexual toys are shared, consider using barriers or cleaning them between uses.
  • If under the age of 26, get the HPV vaccine. This will reduce the chance for cervical, vaginal, anal, and oral cancers.
  • Avoid tobacco, limit alcohol, and limit/avoid other drugs. If you choose to use substances and are unwilling to stop, consider using them in the safest ways possible. For example, consider vaporizing marijuana instead of smoking, or participate in a clean needle program.
  • Maintain a healthy weight. Women who have sex with women are more likely to be overweight than their heterosexual peers. Being overweight is associated with heart disease and a lower quality of life.
  • Exercise regularly. Weight bearing exercise, like walking and running, is best for bone health. But anything that gets your heart rate up and gets you moving is good for your body and mind!
  • Seek help if you’re struggling with self injury, anorexia, or bulimia. These issues are much more common in women than in men, and can be particularly challenging to deal with.
  • Consider taking folic acid supplements if pregnancy is a possibility. Folic acid prevents some birth defects.
  • Discuss their family’s cancer history with their physician.

Your physician may wish to do other tests, including…

  • Cervical cancer screening/Pap smear. All women with a cervix, starting at age 21, should get a pap smear every 3-5 years at minimum. Human papilloma virus (HPV) testing may also be included. More frequent pap smears may be recommended if one comes back positive or abnormal.
  • Pregnancy testing, even if you have not had contact with semen. Emergency situations are where testing is most likely to be urged. Physicians are, to some extent, trained to assume a cisgender woman is pregnant until proven otherwise. If you feel strongly that you do not want to get tested, please discuss this with your physician.
  • BRCA screening to determine your breast cancer risk, if breast cancer runs in your family. They may wish to perform other genetic testing as well, and may refer you to a geneticist.
  • If you’re between the ages of 50 and 74, mammography every other year is recommended. Mammography is a screening test for breast cancer. Breast self exams are no longer recommended.

One note on sexually transmitted infections… some lesbian and bisexual women may feel that they are not at risk for sexually transmitted infections because they don’t have contact with men. This is simply not true. The specific STIs are different, but there are still serious infections that can be spread from cis woman to cis woman. Infections that cis lesbians and bisexual women are at risk for include: chlamydia, herpes, HPV, pubic lice, trichomoniasis, and bacterial vaginosis (Source). Other infections such as gonorrhea, HIV, and syphilis are less likely but could still be spread. Please play safe and seek treatment if you are exposed or having symptoms.

Want more information? You can read more from the CDC, Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, and the United States Preventative Services Task Force.

Feb 012016
 
Human heart and lungs -- the core of the human cardiovascular system

Human heart and lungs — the core of the human cardiovascular system

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. And it’s growing, largely because the factors that lead to CVD are growing too: obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diets based on meat, and physical inactivity. We have data on how CVD risk varies depending on sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. But we don’t have strong data on how gay, lesbian, and bisexual peoples risk factors add up to actual CVD risk.

CVD risk is often calculated using data from the Framingham study, a massive multigenerational study started back in 1948. The risk calculators that still come from that study today are some of the most well validated calculators we have. A physician can plug in a few numbers and get a good estimate of your risk of having a cardiovascular-related event over the next few years. The calculators are publicly available, but really do need training to interpret.

Why do I bring up the Framingham study? Because the study I’m examining this week uses those same calculators and other factors to try to estimate the cardiovascular risk of lesbian, gay, and bisexual cisgender people. Let’s take a look at what they did!

This study used data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health. They used data from a whopping 13,427 participants. That’s a lot of people — one of the largest sample sizes covered here on Open Minded Health. The participants were also quite young for a study on heart disease — mostly around 28-29 years old. They looked at social factors like age, ethnicity, educational level, and level of financial stress. They also looked at medical factors, like their diabetes status and hypertension (high blood pressure) status.

The researchers reported sexual orientation on a Kinsey-like 5-point scale, from “heterosexual” to “mostly heterosexual” to “bisexual” to “mostly homosexual” to “homosexual”. I’ll try to stick to that language for clarity. Among the participants, 80% of the women and 93.5% of the men said they were heterosexual. In contrast, .9% of the women and 1.7% of the men said they were homosexual, and 18.7% of women and 4.8% of men were in the middle.

So what about their cardiovascular risk?

The men’s 30 year CVD risk was 17.2%, and the women’s was 9%. What does that mean? It means the men has a 17% chance of having cardiovascular disease in the next 30 years. In other words, a little under 1 in 5 of the men would have CVD by the end of 30 years. By then, they’d be in their late 50’s. Roughly one in five men and one in ten women in the entire study would likely have cardiovascular disease by their late 50’s.

What happens when we look at sexual orientation?

For women: Compared to heterosexual women (9% risk), all other sexual orientations were at higher risk for cardiovascular disease. Mostly heterosexual women had the lowest of non-heterosexual women, at 9.8%. Mostly homosexual women had the highest, at 11.8%.

For men: Compared to heterosexual men (17.2% risk), some sexual orientations were at higher risk and some were at lower risk. Mostly heterosexual and completely homosexual men were at lower risk of cardiovascular disease — 16.3% and 16.6% respectively. In contrast, mostly homosexual men had higher risk, at 20.2%!

What factors other than sexual orientation came into play? Risks were lower with more education. Being a college graduate reduced risk from 3% for women to 5% for men. Being of Asian or Hispanic descent was also protective, though not nearly as much. And the factors that increased risk? Being of African descent (up to 1% higher), being older (up to 1.5% higher), and having financial stress (up to 1.2% higher).

Let’s summarize a bunch of those numbers, shall we?

Overall, men are at twice the risk for cardiovascular disease as women. Non-heterosexual women are at higher risk than heterosexual women. Among men, mostly heterosexual and completely homosexual men were at lowest risk and mostly homosexual men were at the highest risk. Among everyone, poorer black people were at higher risks and richer, more educated hispanics and asians were at lower risks.

Why such a difference?

It’s hard to say. The researchers don’t go into detailed statistics to figure it out. I have some thoughts from looking over the data they published though. For women, it looks like part of that increased risk is from smoking — it looks like a higher percentage of non-heterosexual women smoked. On the male side, it looks like diabetes may play a role. But I haven’t run statistics to see if what I think I’m seeing is real or just by chance.

Regardless — this is valuable information which will help public health officials determine where to put their resources.

What can you do with this information? You can work to reduce your own cardiovascular risk! Here are some things to consider doing (depending on what works for you!):

  • Move more, eat less. Most Americans eat too much and don’t move enough, which leads to obesity and cardiovascular disease.
  • Stop smoking. Much easier said than done, but this is one of the best things you can do for your health
  • If you have diabetes, keep your blood sugar under control as best you can. Aim for the lowest HbA1c you can, but under 7% is a great place to be. If you haven’t spoken with a diabetes nurse educator, they can be great allies.
  • If you have hypertension, keep it under control as best you can. Take your medications, and talk with your doctor about them.
  • Get some healthy stress relief. Whether that’s a long hot bath, a fitness class, a long walk/run in the wilderness, or knitting a scarf — find something that helps you relax every day.

Want to read the study for yourself? The abstract is publicly available!

Oct 052015
 

480px-RGB_LED_Rainbow_from_7th_symmetry_cylindrical_gratingI’ve been saying for years now that the phrase “LGBT community” is insufficient when it comes to health. It’s not one community — it is multiple communities. The social issues and health issues that a gay transgender man faces every day are different from the issues a bisexual cisgender woman faces every day. There are some similarities and grouping the communities together has been politically useful. But it should never be forgotten that L, G, B, and T all face different types of health concerns and have different civil rights battles to face.

A study came out in August that has to be one of my favorites this year. Researchers in Georgia surveyed over three thousand lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, and queer people. They asked about health behaviors of all kinds. And then they did statistical analysis, comparing the various genders (cis male, cis female, trans male, trans female, genderqueer) and sexual orientations (lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, straight). Let’s look at what they found!

  • Diet and exercise: The researchers asked about fatty foods, eating while not hungry, quantity of vegetables and fruits eaten, and about hours and types of exercise. Transgender women had the least healthy diet of all genders. As a group, they were less likely to eat many fruits and vegetables, and more likely to drink sugared drinks and eat when they weren’t hungry. Both cisgender and transgender men were also less likely to eat many vegetables compared with other groups. Genderqueer people and gay cisgender men were most likely to exercise.
  • Substance use: The researchers asked about smoking tobacco and alcohol consumption. Cisgender men were the most likely to drink alcohol, binge drink, and to drink even when they didn’t want to. Participants who identified as queer were also more likely to drink. When it came to tobacco, transgender men and straight participants were the most likely to smoke.
  • Motor vehicle risk: The researchers asked about seatbelt use, speeding, and texting while driving. No clear differences for speeding were noted. Transgender men and straight participants were most likely to drive without a seatbelt. Texting while driving varied considerably; gay and lesbian drivers were most likely to text while driving.
  • Sexual behaviors: The researchers asked about frequency of unprotected sex and sex while intoxicated. Gay men were least likely to have unprotected sex while lesbian women were most likely to have unprotected sex. When it came to sex while intoxicated, only the bisexual participants stood out as being most likely among the groups to have sex while intoxicated.
  • Violence: The researchers asked about self harm and expressing anger at others. Overall rates of interpersonal anger were very low. Transgender men and pansexual people were most likely to self harm.
  • Medical risk taking: The researchers asked about delaying medical care and not following physician advice. Transgender women were least likely to seek care; 1/3 reported that they regularly delayed seeking medical care. Both transgender women and transgender men were more likely to not follow medical advice when it was given. Bisexual people were also more likely to delay seeking medical care compared to lesbian and gay participants.

That’s a mouthful, right? There are a lot of details I left out of this summary and it still threatens to be overwhelming with detail. So how we can break this down even more simply? By talking about the conclusions.

The researchers go into some possible causes for all these different results. Maybe gay men are safer about sex because of HIV risk. Maybe transgender men eat few vegetables because of cultural expectations that “men eat lots of meat and not many vegetables.” Maybe gay and lesbian people text more while driving because of the lack of community-specific messages.

Maybe. And they’re all good thoughts.

I tend to look forward more to what we can do with these data. I’m pretty happy with this study — it’s one of the broadest I’ve seen for inclusion. Few health-oriented pieces of research include pansexual and genderqueer individuals.

It’s important to remember that these results are at the group level. Any individual person who is a gender/sexual minority will have their own health behaviors and risks. They should be evaluated and treated as individuals. From a public health perspective though, this research brings valuable data. Only by knowing what each group faces can prevention, screening, and treatment campaigns be created. Only by knowing, for example, that transgender and bisexual people avoid seeking medical care can we then examine “why?” and act to remove the barriers so that appropriate, respectful medical care is available.

So — can we change the conversation? Instead of talking about “the LGBT community”, let’s talk about “the LGBT communities”. Or, even better, “gender and sexual minority communities” — removing the alphabet soup and expanding the definitions at the same time. This research is only the tip of the iceberg. We have so much more to explore.

The paper is published online ahead of print. The abstract is publicly available.

Jun 012011
 

For “older” adults, the IOM uses retirement age (around 60) as their starting age. For this group, there are no well-studied areas of health (beyond HIV/AIDS, which I don’t cover here). I’ve decided to leave the conclusion portion for another post – the last in this series.

  • Depression: Definitely more frequent in LGB elders than heterosexual elders. A very significant mental stress for this group is surviving the start of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. One study of elder gay/bisexual men found that 93% of them had known others who were HIV+ or had died of AIDS. There is no empirical data on rates of depression in elder transgender people, but it’s thought to be high.
  • Suicide/suicidal ideation: Empirical data suggest the rates of suicide are higher in LGB elders. No data on transgender elders.
  • Sexual/reproductive health: This is a rarely studied area. PCOS and its related risks may be an issue in some transgender elders. There is some indication that gay/bisexual men may be at the same risk as heterosexual men for prostate cancer. Early research implies that “lesbian bed death” may be a real phenomenon, but it’s a controversial topic. All cis-gendered women (bisexual, heterosexual, or lesbian) appear to have the same rate of hysterectomies. Sexual violence was reported on for transgender elders and it appears to be high. One study found about half of transgender elders had experienced “unwanted touch” in the past fifteen years.
  • Cancers: There are no data on cancers and transgender elders. Elder gay/bisexual men are at a higher risk of developing anal cancer (which is linked to receiving anal sex and HPV). Non-heterosexual women also appear to be at a higher risk for reproductive cancers (due to risk factors like smoking and obesity).
  • Cardiovascular health: Data appear to be conflicted. Transwomen using estrogen may be at a higher risk for venous thromboembolism (this may be because of the specific forms of estrogen used). There’s an association between transgender people getting their hormones from someone other than a doctor and poor health outcomes (e.g., osteoporosis, cardiovascular disease). The relevant transition hormones may cause long-term health problems at high doses, but no studies have really looked at this.

Risk factors include those for the younger age groups. Ageism within the LGBT communities may be an additional challenge for LGBT elders. Elders may also feel they need to hide their orientation if they move into a retirement home. Some retirement homes may also be discriminatory.  Transgender elders especially face very high threats of violence.

Some studies have found that elders felt more prepared for the aging process by being LGBT. Why? They’d already overcome huge difficulties. They’d already done a lot of personal growth. LGBT people are also more likely to have education beyond high school, and education is a well-known protective factor for the negative effects of aging. Conversely, some LGBT elders reported fewer relationship and social opportunities, being afraid of double discrimination, and problems with health care providers.

As for elder interactions with the health care system, again there’s a lot in common with younger age groups. One out of four transgender elders report being denied health care solely because they were transgender. Elders in general face problems if they need to enter assisted living homes, as some homes are discriminatory. It’s also worth noting that LGBT elder social structure is different from heterosexual social structure. LGBT elders rely much more on close friends than relatives (and/or adult children). Their chosen families are less likely to be recognized by the medical community, especially without legal paperwork.

So that’s it for what I’ll summarize from the report. Thanks for sticking around for it… this is hefty stuff.