Abstract
Background:
Cancer survivors are at high risk for chronic health conditions and physical and cognitive limitations. However, few studies have explored these outcomes among LGBTQ+ survivors.
Methods:
We used pooled, weighted Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data from 23 states that completed two specific modules from 2020–2022. We calculated age-adjusted prevalence for heart disease, asthma, COPD, depressive disorders, myocardial infarction, kidney disease, stroke, diabetes, hearing disability, vision disability, cognitive limitations, and difficulty walking, dressing, and running errands in LGBTQ+, lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB), transgender or gender non-conforming (TGNC), and non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors. Four multivariable logistic regression models controlling for different factors were run for each outcome.
Results:
Of 40,990 cancer survivors, 1,715 were LGBTQ+. LGBTQ+ survivors had significantly higher age-adjusted prevalence of all outcomes. The prevalence of all outcomes was highest among TGNC survivors except for depressive disorders and cognitive limitations. LGBTQ+ survivors had higher odds of reporting asthma (aOR: 1.5, 95%CI:1.2–1.9), depressive disorders (aOR: 1.9, 95%CI:1.6–2.4), kidney disease (aOR: 1.5, 95%CI:1.1–2.1), stroke (aOR: 1.7, 95%CI:1.3–2.3), diabetes (aOR: 1.3, 95%CI:1.0–1.6), vision disability (aOR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.2–2.2), cognitive limitations (aOR: 2.3, 95%CI:1.8–2.9), difficulty walking (aOR: 1.7, 95%CI:1.3–2.0), dressing (aOR: 2.0, 95%CI:1.5–2.7), and running errands (aOR: 1.6, 95%CI:1.3–2.1). In TGNC models, TGNC cancer survivors had increased odds of most outcomes.
Conclusions:
LGBTQ+ cancer survivors have an elevated burden of all chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations assessed. TGNC cancer survivors experience even higher burden of the same outcomes.
Impact:
Findings highlight substantial disparities regarding the health of LGBTQ+ cancer survivors.
Introduction
Improvements in the early detection and treatment of cancer have reduced cancer-related mortality and rapidly increased the number of cancer survivors in the United States. As of 2022, there were approximately 18.1 million cancer survivors in the US (1). Although effective at prolonging life, cancer treatments can exacerbate existing health conditions and cause new long-term health effects that impact survivors’ physical and psychological health. Chronic diseases such as diabetes, kidney disease, liver disease, COPD, and heart disease may be more common among cancer survivors than among individuals without a cancer diagnosis (2).
Currently, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Plus (LGBTQ+) populations represent at least 7.1% of the US population and are likely to experience health inequities related to LGBTQ+ stigma and other social determinants of health (3, 4). In a recent systematic review, gay and bisexual men were found to be more likely to have asthma and chronic kidney disease than heterosexual men (5). Further, one secondary analysis of the National Health Interview Survey revealed that among women, lesbian and bisexual cancer survivors were more likely to have heart conditions, COPD, and psychological distress than non-lesbian or bisexual cancer survivors (6). These health differences may be due to experiences of stress related to LGBTQ+ stigma in health care settings and general life as well as differences in health behaviors such as smoking (7, 8). Few national samples have been used to evaluate LGBTQ+ disparities among cancer survivors regarding prevalence of chronic health conditions, disability, and physical and cognitive limitations that includes both cisgender and transgender identities.
The purpose of our study was to use Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data to assess differences in the age-adjusted prevalence of chronic health conditions, disabilities, as well as physical and cognitive limitations reported by LGBTQ+ and non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors. Further, we aimed to understand the differences in burden of chronic health conditions and physical and cognitive limitations by sexual minority (lesbian, gay, bisexual; LGB) and gender minority (transgender and gender non-conforming; TGNC). Estimating LGBTQ+ disparities in chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations among cancer survivors is crucial to the development of future equity-based preventive health interventions.
Materials and Methods
The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is an ongoing nationwide telephone survey system that has collected data on health-related behaviors, health status, and healthcare access since 1984 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/). Eligible BRFSS participants are non-institutionalized adults aged 18 years or older residing in the US and were consented during original data collection by the CDC. Our study population for secondary analysis included BRFSS participants from the 23 states that administered both the sexual orientation and gender identity module and the cancer survivorship module in 2020, 2021, or 2022. This study was deemed exempt by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board which reviews in accordance to the Declaration of Helsinki.
Chronic Health Conditions, Disability, and Limitations
The primary outcomes of our analysis were chronic health conditions (angina or heart disease, asthma, COPD, depressive disorder, heart disease, kidney disease, stroke, and diabetes), disabilities, and physical and cognitive limitations (hearing disability, vision disability, cognitive limitation, difficulty walking, difficulty dressing, and difficulty running errands). Chronic health condition outcomes were categorized as chronic health conditions in alignment with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s definition of chronic disease (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/chronic-disease/?CDC_AAref_Val=https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/about/index.htm). Participants who answered “Yes” to the following questions were considered as having the above conditions, disabilities, and limitations: “(1) (Ever told) (you had) angina or coronary heart disease?,” “(2) (Ever told) (you had) asthma?,” “(3) (Ever told) (you had) C.O.P.D. (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), emphysema or chronic bronchitis?,” “(4) (Ever told) (you had) a depressive disorder (including depression, major depression, dysthymia, or minor depression)?,” “(5) (Ever told) (you had) a had a heart attack, also called a myocardial infarction?,” “(6) Not including kidney stones, bladder infection or incontinence, were you ever told you had kidney disease?,” “(7) (Ever told) (you had) a stroke?,” “(8) (Ever told) (you had) diabetes?,” “(9) Are you deaf or do you have serious difficulty hearing?,” “(10) Are you blind or do you have serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses,” “(11) Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions?,” “(12) Do you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs?,” “(13) Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing?,” “(14) Because of a physical, mental, or emotional condition, do you have difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctoŕs office or shopping? ”.
LGBTQ+ Identity, Cancer, and Other Characteristics
LGBTQ+ Identity, our primary exposure of interest, was determined using self-reported responses to the following questions: “(1) Sexual Orientation: Which of the following best represents how you think of yourself?: Straight, Lesbian or Gay, Bisexual, Something else” “(2) Gender Identity: Do you consider yourself to be transgender? (If yes, ask “Do you consider yourself to be male-to-female, female-to-male, or gender non-conforming?)”. People who identified themselves as “Lesbian or Gay,” “Bisexual,” or “Something else,” for Question (1) or “Yes, Transgender, male-to-female,” “Yes, Transgender, female to male,” or “Yes, Transgender, gender non-conforming” for Question (2) were combined as LGBTQ+ in our study. If individuals selected “Lesbian or Gay,” “Bisexual,” or “Something else,” for Question (1) but no to “Do you consider yourself to be transgender?” were considered cisgender and sexual minority (LGB) in our study. Responding with ‘something else’ to the sexual orientation question was interpreted as another non-heterosexual sexual orientation such as asexual, pansexual, or queer. Based on National Academies report on measuring SOGI, there is little evidence that suggests heterosexual individuals select ‘something else’ when asked about sexual orientation (9). Further, regardless of sexual orientation, if individuals selected “Yes, Transgender, male-to-female,” “Yes, Transgender, female to male,” or “Yes, Transgender, gender non-conforming” for Question (2) they were considered a gender minority (TGNC) in our study. Cancer survivor status was ascertained using one question from the Cancer Survivorship module that asked participants “How many different types of cancer have you had?” Any response of one or more were considered cancer survivors. Other self-reported sociodemographic factors, including age at interview, race and ethnicity, household income, education level, and smoking status, were used as covariates in our analysis. Covariates were selected based on existing literature.
Sociodemographic characteristics included in this analysis were race and ethnicity, age at interview, household income, education, age at cancer diagnosis, diagnosis, and smoking status. Race and ethnicity were collapsed to non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic person of color (POC), and Hispanic due to the limited sample size. Age was collapsed into three age groups based on the developmental literature including 18–39, 40–64, and 65 and older. Education was collapsed to high school graduate or less, attended college or technical school, and graduated from college or technical school because of the small sample size of participants who did not complete high school education. Finally, smoking status was collapsed to current smokers, former smokers, and never smokers.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the survey sample by LGBTQ+ status (Table 1). All analyses were weighted using weights inherent to the survey sampling methods of BRFSS (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. [cited 2024 May 21]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/). The chi-squared test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were conducted to describe the differences in the distribution of covariates and outcomes between different LGBTQ+ subgroups. Weighted age-adjusted prevalence of chronic health conditions and disabilities and limitations was standardized using 2021 US Census data (Table 2) (United States Census Bureau. Annual Estimates for the Resident Population for Selected Age Groups by Sex for the United States: [cited 2024 May 21] Available from: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-national-detail.html). Two-proportion z-test was used to test the difference by LGBTQ+ status. Statistical tests were not run to detect differences between LGB and TGNC prevalence estimates due to being underpowered. Weighted multivariate logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) to assess the associations between LGBTQ+ status and each chronic health condition, disability, and limitation (Table 3) as well as associations between LGB status and each outcome (Table 4) and TGNC status and each outcome (Table 5). Logistic regression models and aORs were used due to the rarity of some outcomes and to maximize comparability to the existing literature. Four models were run for each outcome and each group (LGBTQ+, LGB, TGNC), controlling for A) age; B) age, race and ethnicity; C) age, race and ethnicity, and smoking status; and D) age, race and ethnicity, smoking status, education, and household income. All models included year and state fixed effects. Age was included in all multivariable as a potential confounder to reflect generational shifts in reporting of LGBTQ+ status and the association between age and the outcomes of interest. Race and ethnicity was considered in subsequent models to improve precision of outcome associations. Smoking, education, and household income potentially lie on the pathway from LGBTQ+ identity to chronic conditions and therefore were considered in separate models to evaluate the potential impact of statistical adjustment for these factors.
Table 1.
Differences in Demographic Factors of Cancer Survivors by LGBTQ+ Status
| Overall (N=40,990) | Non-LGBTQ+ (N=39,275) | LGBTQ+ (N=1,715) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||||
| N (%) | 95% CI2 | N (%) | 95% CI2 | N (%) | 95% CI2 | p-value3 | |
|
| |||||||
| Sexual Orientation | - | ||||||
| Lesbian or gay | 638 (1.5) | 1.28, 1.72 | - | - | 638 (33.6) | 29.5, 37.9 | |
| Bisexual | 551 (1.6) | 1.37, 1.90 | - | - | 551 (36.4) | 32.0, 41.1 | |
| Something else | 458 (1.2) | 1.01, 1.43 | - | - | 458 (27.2) | 23.3, 31.5 | |
| Straight or heterosexual | 39,295 (95.7) | 95.3, 96.1 | 39,238 (100.0) | - | 57 (2.8) | 1.87, 4.13 | |
| Unknown | 4 | 0 | 4 | ||||
| Gender | - | ||||||
| Cisgender | 40,864 (99.6) | 99.5, 99.7 | 39,275 (100.0) | - | 1,589 (91.8) | 88.5, 94.3 | |
| Transgender man | 38 (0.1) | 0.06, 0.14 | - | - | 38 (2.0) | 1.24, 3.19 | |
| Transgender woman | 43 (0.1) | 0.07, 0.29 | - | - | 43 (3.3) | 1.67, 6.29 | |
| Gender non-conforming | 33 (0.1) | 0.07, 0.24 | - | - | 33 (2.9) | 1.56, 5.35 | |
| Unknown | 12 | 0 | 12 | ||||
| Sex | |||||||
| Female | 23,036 (56.4) | 55.5, 57.3 | 22,092 (56.4) | 55.4, 57.3 | 944 (57.3) | 52.8, 61.7 | |
| Male | 17,954 (43.6) | 42.7, 44.5 | 17,183 (43.6) | 42.7, 44.6 | 771 (42.7) | 38.3, 47.2 | |
| Race and Ethnicity | <0.001 | ||||||
| Hispanic or Latine | 1,165 (3.2) | 2.94, 3.58 | 1,076 (3.0) | 2.70, 3.29 | 89 (8.9) | 6.08, 12.7 | |
| Non-Hispanic POC | 3,299 (10.1) | 9.42, 10.7 | 3,137 (10.0) | 9.35, 10.7 | 162 (11.2) | 8.58, 14.6 | |
| Non-Hispanic White | 36,526 (86.7) | 86.0, 87.4 | 35,062 (87.0) | 86.3, 87.7 | 1,464 (79.9) | 75.5, 83.7 | |
| Year of Survey | 0.3 | ||||||
| 2020 | 17,666 (51.3) | 50.7, 51.9 | 16,968 (51.2) | 50.5, 51.8 | 698 (53.9) | 49.5, 58.3 | |
| 2021 | 7,213 (6.5) | 6.27, 6.64 | 6,902 (6.4) | 6.25, 6.64 | 311 (6.6) | 5.47, 7.95 | |
| 2022 | 16,111 (42.3) | 41.6, 42.9 | 15,405 (42.4) | 41.7, 43.1 | 706 (39.5) | 35.3, 43.9 | |
| Age group (years) | <0.001 | ||||||
| 18 to 39 | 2,031 (8.8) | 8.24, 9.45 | 1,797 (7.9) | 7.38, 8.53 | 234 (27.8) | 23.2, 32.8 | |
| 40 to 64 | 11,247 (33.2) | 32.4, 34.1 | 10,695 (33.3) | 32.4, 34.2 | 552 (32.2) | 28.1, 36.6 | |
| 65 or older | 27,712 (57.9) | 57.0, 58.8 | 26,783 (58.8) | 57.8, 59.7 | 929 (40.0) | 35.9, 44.2 | |
| Household Income ($) | <0.001 | ||||||
| <15,000 | 1,766 (6.3) | 5.71, 7.01 | 1,628 (6.1) | 5.46, 6.78 | 138 (11.1) | 7.95, 15.4 | |
| 15,000–25,000 | 3,683 (11.9) | 11.2, 12.6 | 3,471 (11.7) | 11.0, 12.3 | 212 (16.2) | 12.6, 20.5 | |
| 25,000–35,000 | 3,697 (10.0) | 9.46, 10.7 | 3,515 (10.0) | 9.38, 10.6 | 182 (11.6) | 8.66, 15.3 | |
| 35,000–50,000 | 4,772 (13.5) | 12.9, 14.2 | 4,552 (13.6) | 13.0, 14.3 | 220 (11.7) | 9.28, 14.6 | |
| ≥50,000 | 19,776 (58.2) | 57.2, 59.2 | 19,028 (58.7) | 57.6, 59.7 | 748 (49.5) | 44.6, 54.3 | |
| Unknown | 7,296 | 7081 | 215 | ||||
| Education | 0.8 | ||||||
| High school graduate or less | 10,350 (34.1) | 33.2, 35.0 | 9,944 (34.0) | 33.1, 35.0 | 406 (35.3) | 30.7, 40.2 | |
| Attended college or technical school | 11,327 (32.5) | 31.6, 33.4 | 10,877 (32.5) | 31.6, 33.4 | 450 (32.4) | 28.2, 37.0 | |
| Graduated from college or technical school | 19,251 (33.4) | 32.6, 34.2 | 18,395 (33.4) | 32.6, 34.2 | 856 (32.2) | 28.7, 36.0 | |
| Unknown | 62 | 59 | 3 | ||||
| Age at Cancer Diagnosis | 53.0 (16.3) | 52.6, 53.3 | 53.4 (16.0) | 53.0, 53.7 | 44.4 (19.2) | 42.5, 46.3 | <0.001 |
| Unknown | 3,028 | 2,920 | 108 | ||||
| Cancer Diagnosis | <0.001 | ||||||
| Bladder cancer | 719 (1.9) | 1.68, 2.20 | 693 (2.0) | 1.71, 2.25 | 26 (1.2) | 0.70, 2.04 | |
| Breast cancer | 5,188 (13.7) | 13.0, 14.4 | 4,997 (13.9) | 13.2, 14.6 | 191 (9.8) | 7.74, 12.4 | |
| Cervical cancer | 1,025 (3.3) | 2.96, 3.68 | 934 (3.1) | 2.75, 3.48 | 91 (7.6) | 5.69, 10.1 | |
| Colon cancer | 1,207 (3.3) | 2.95, 3.69 | 1,153 (3.3) | 2.95, 3.71 | 54 (3.2) | 1.98, 5.06 | |
| Endometrial cancer | 745 (1.9) | 1.65, 2.11 | 709 (1.9) | 1.66, 2.13 | 36 (1.6) | 1.05, 2.46 | |
| Leukemia cancer | 386 (1.0) | 0.80, 1.18 | 368 (0.9) | 0.77, 1.13 | 18 (1.8) | 0.74, 4.49 | |
| Lung cancer | 769 (2.3) | 2.04, 2.66 | 741 (2.3) | 2.04, 2.66 | 28 (2.3) | 1.00, 5.38 | |
| Lymphoma | 770 (2.1) | 1.90, 2.43 | 738 (2.2) | 1.94, 2.50 | 32 (1.0) | 0.63, 1.68 | |
| Melanoma | 5,399 (14.1) | 13.4, 14.8 | 5,157 (14.0) | 13.3, 14.7 | 242 (15.5) | 12.4, 19.3 | |
| Ovarian cancer | 439 (1.4) | 1.19, 1.73 | 415 (1.4) | 1.18, 1.74 | 24 (1.5) | 0.88, 2.43 | |
| Prostate cancer | 3,308 (8.5) | 8.05, 9.06 | 3,195 (8.7) | 8.15, 9.20 | 113 (6.1) | 4.60, 7.93 | |
| Renal cancer | 497 (1.3) | 1.17, 1.55 | 475 (1.3) | 1.17, 1.56 | 22 (1.3) | 0.68, 2.44 | |
| Skin cancer | 13,216 (32.3) | 31.4, 33.2 | 12,707 (32.6) | 31.7, 33.5 | 509 (27.1) | 23.0, 31.5 | |
| Thyroid cancer | 797 (2.6) | 2.27, 2.95 | 757 (2.4) | 2.15, 2.77 | 40 (5.8) | 3.14, 10.5 | |
| Other | 3,528 (10.2) | 9.60, 10.7 | 3,347 (10.0) | 9.41, 10.6 | 181 (14.1) | 11.1, 17.8 | |
| Unknown | 2,997 | 2,889 | 108 | ||||
| Smoking | <0.001 | ||||||
| Current smoker | 3,664 (12.0) | 11.3, 12.7 | 3,415 (11.6) | 10.9, 12.3 | 249 (19.5) | 15.8, 24.2 | |
| Former smoker | 15,131 (36.4) | 35.5, 37.3 | 14,477 (36.3) | 35.6, 37.4 | 654 (33.9) | 30.1, 38.5 | |
| Never smoked | 21,962 (51.6) | 50.7, 52.5 | 21,159 (51.6) | 50.9, 52.8 | 803 (45.8) | 41.6, 50.8 | |
| Unknown | 233 | 224 | 9 | ||||
| State | 0.2 | ||||||
| Arkansas | 1,087 (0.9) | 0.81, 0.90 | 1,044 (0.8) | 0.81, 0.89 | 43 (0.9) | 0.62, 1.43 | |
| Colorado | 1,161 (3.0) | 2.88, 3.13 | 1,107 (3.0) | 2.88, 3.14 | 54 (2.9) | 2.14, 4.05 | |
| Connecticut | 2,303 (3.9) | 3.72, 4.08 | 2,193 (3.9) | 3.68, 4.05 | 110 (4.7) | 3.44, 6.43 | |
| Delaware | 557 (0.6) | 0.55, 0.63 | 535 (0.6) | 0.55, 0.63 | 22 (0.6) | 0.34, 0.97 | |
| Georgia | 1,254 (5.7) | 5.41, 5.91 | 1,204 (5.6) | 5.31, 5.86 | 50 (7.2) | 4.86, 10.5 | |
| Hawaii | 2,852 (1.7) | 1.59, 1.72 | 2,727 (1.7) | 1.59, 1.73 | 125 (1.5) | 1.15, 2.01 | |
| Illinois | 359 (5.7) | 5.29, 6.20 | 342 (5.7) | 5.24, 6.21 | 17 (6.2) | 3.56, 10.6 | |
| Indiana | 2,401 (7.4) | 7.23, 7.58 | 2,300 (7.5) | 7.27, 7.65 | 101 (6.2) | 4.86, 7.94 | |
| Iowa | 1,220 (1.9) | 1.81, 1.92 | 1,194 (1.9) | 1.84, 1.96 | 26 (1.1) | 0.71, 1.79 | |
| Louisana | 604 (2.4) | 2.26, 2.57 | 583 (2.4) | 2.22, 2.53 | 21 (3.3) | 1.86, 5.81 | |
| Massachusetts | 986 (4.1) | 3.91, 4.36 | 921 (4.0) | 3.81, 4.27 | 65 (6.2) | 4.31, 8.92 | |
| Michigan | 2,539 (11.8) | 11.4, 12.1 | 2,438 (11.8) | 11.5, 12.2 | 101 (10.7) | 8.02, 14.0 | |
| Missouri | 1,013 (3.5) | 3.35, 3.65 | 976 (3.5) | 3.36, 3.68 | 37 (3.2) | 2.05, 4.86 | |
| Montana | 1,902 (1.1) | 1.05, 1.13 | 1,831 (1.1) | 1.05, 1.13 | 71 (1.0) | 0.71, 1.33 | |
| Nevada | 426 (1.4) | 1.26, 1.57 | 401 (1.4) | 1.25, 1.58 | 25 (1.3) | 0.82, 2.20 | |
| New Jersey | 1,985 (6.1) | 5.91, 6.35 | 1,897 (6.1) | 5.88, 6.34 | 88 (6.6) | 4.61, 9.35 | |
| New Mexico | 2,466 (2.6) | 2.53, 2.73 | 2,353 (2.6) | 2.51, 2.72 | 113 (3.0) | 2.30, 3.91 | |
| North Carolina | 1,230 (12.3) | 11.8, 12.9 | 1,195 (12.5) | 11.9, 13.1 | 35 (9.3) | 6.37, 13.4 | |
| Rhode Island | 1,651 (1.3) | 1.23, 1.34 | 1,580 (1.3) | 1.23, 1.35 | 71 (1.2) | 0.86, 1.61 | |
| Utah | 4,576 (4.4) | 4.26, 4.47 | 4,402 (4.3) | 4.21, 4.43 | 174 (5.3) | 4.28, 6.53 | |
| Vermont | 2,390 (0.8) | 0.81, 0.88 | 2,252 (0.8) | 0.80, 0.86 | 138 (1.2) | 0.93, 1.57 | |
| Virginia | 2,984 (9.5) | 9.26, 9.81 | 2,887 (9.6) | 9.30, 9.89 | 97 (8.4) | 6.40, 10.8 | |
| Wisconsin | 3,044 (8.0) | 7.71, 8.20 | 2,913 (8.0) | 7.70, 8.22 | 131 (8.0) | 6.05, 10.4 | |
n (unweighted); Mean (SD)
CI = Confidence Interval
chi-squared test with Rao & Scott’s second-order correction; Wilcoxon rank-sum test for complex survey samples
POC: Person of color
Table 2.
Age-Adjusted Weighted Prevalence Estimates for Chronic Health Conditions, Limitations, and Disability among Cancer Survivors by LGBTQ+ Status as well as Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB) identity and Transgender or Gender Non-Conforming (TGNC) identity.
| Non-LGBTQ+ (N=39,275) | LGBTQ+ (N=1,715) | LGBTQ+ (N=1,715) |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LGB (N=1601) | TGNC (N=114) | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
| 95 CI2 | 95 CI2 | p-value | 95 CI2 | 95 CI2 | |||||
|
| |||||||||
| Chronic Health Conditions | |||||||||
| Angina or heart disease | 6.79 | 5.68, 7.91 | 10.79 | 6.08, 15.50 | <0.001 | 8.89 | 4.85, 12.93 | 21.89 | 0.35, 43.44 |
| Asthma | 19.15 | 17.38, 20.91 | 30.68 | 23.83, 37.52 | <0.001 | 29.50 | 22.84, 36.15 | 38.76 | 13.08, 64.45 |
| COPD | 11.90 | 10.48, 13.32 | 16.19 | 11.59, 20.79 | <0.001 | 13.77 | 10.59, 16.96 | 33.40 | 7.97, 58.83 |
| Depressive disorder | 29.48 | 27.10, 31.86 | 48.52 | 40.29, 56.75 | <0.001 | 49.93 | 49.98, 58.88 | 34.31 | 16.48, 52.13 |
| Myocardial infarction | 6.06 | 5.12, 7.00 | 10.84 | 5.97, 15.70 | <0.001 | 8.01 | 4.21, 11.80 | 29.40 | 4.56, 54.23 |
| Kidney disease | 6.87 | 5.79, 7.96 | 13.54 | 8.16, 18.92 | <0.001 | 10.12 | 5.95, 14.29 | 34.00 | 7.03, 60.97 |
| Stroke | 4.65 | 4.12, 5.17 | 10.84 | 6.18, 15.50 | <0.001 | 8.79 | 4.92, 12.67 | 21.85 | 0.00, 43.95 |
| Diabetes | 13.63 | 12.54, 14.71 | 20.83 | 14.94, 26.72 | <0.001 | 17.53 | 12.65, 22.42 | 42.90 | 14.95, 70.84 |
| Disability and Limitations | |||||||||
| Hearing disability | 9.37 | 8.31, 10.43 | 13.52 | 8.70, 18.35 | <0.001 | 11.46 | 7.73, 15.19 | 26.11 | 1.87, 50.34 |
| Vision disability | 6.25 | 5.37, 7.12 | 12.89 | 8.09, 17.69 | <0.001 | 10.62 | 6.82, 14.42 | 30.05 | 5.27, 54.84 |
| Cognition limitation | 15.87 | 14.15, 17.60 | 37.85 | 29.18, 46.52 | <0.001 | 35.67 | 26.82, 44.51 | 21.89 | 0.35, 43.44 |
| Difficulty walking | 18.45 | 16.95, 19.95 | 31.40 | 24.68, 38.12 | <0.001 | 28.88 | 22.73, 35.02 | 38.76 | 13.08, 64.45 |
| Difficulty dressing | 5.54 | 4.64, 6.44 | 14.28 | 9.24, 19.32 | <0.001 | 11.58 | 7.58, 15.59 | 33.40 | 7.97, 58.83 |
| Difficulty running errands | 11.58 | 9.96, 13.19 | 23.73 | 17.58, 29.87 | <0.001 | 21.21 | 15.77, 26.65 | 34.31 | 16.48, 52.13 |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
LGB: Cisgender lesbian, gay, and bisexual cancer survivors
TGNC: Transgender or gender non-conforming cancer survivors regardless of sexual orientation
p-value was computed using two-proportion z-test.
Missing or unknown data were excluded from statistical tests.
Table 3.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Models of the Association of LGBTQ+ status with Chronic Health Conditions, Disability, and Cognitive and Physical Limitations (Non-LGBTQ+ N=39,275, LGBTQ+ N=1,715)
| A Models | B Models | C Models | D Models | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | |
|
| ||||||||
| Chronic Health Conditions | ||||||||
| Angina or heart disease | 1.29 | 0.94, 1.76 | 1.28 | 0.94, 1.75 | 1.26 | 0.92, 1.72 | 1.22 | 0.89, 1.67 |
| Asthma | 1.69 | 1.36, 2.11* | 1.68 | 1.35, 2.09* | 1.61 | 1.30, 2.00* | 1.54 | 1.24, 1.91* |
| COPD | 1.33 | 1.03, 1.71* | 1.33 | 1.03, 1.71* | 1.21 | 0.93, 1.57 | 1.15 | 0.87, 1.51 |
| Depressive disorder | 2.10 | 1.74, 2.54* | 2.11 | 1.74, 2.54* | 2.05 | 1.69, 2.48* | 1.94 | 1.60, 2.36* |
| Myocardial Infarction | 1.45 | 1.06, 1.98* | 1.44 | 1.06, 1.96* | 1.37 | 1.01, 1.85* | 1.33 | 0.99, 1.80 |
| Kidney disease | 1.62 | 1.16, 2.25* | 1.60 | 1.15, 2.21* | 1.58 | 1.15, 2.18* | 1.54 | 1.12, 2.11* |
| Stroke | 1.83 | 1.34, 2.48* | 1.80 | 1.33, 2.44* | 1.76 | 1.30, 2.38* | 1.71 | 1.27, 2.31* |
| Diabetes | 1.30 | 1.07, 1.71* | 1.32 | 1.05, 1.66* | 1.30 | 1.03, 1.64* | 1.30 | 1.02, 1.64* |
| Disability and Limitations | ||||||||
| Hearing disability | 1.32 | 0.99, 1.77 | 1.33 | 0.99, 1.78 | 1.29 | 0.97, 1.73 | 1.29 | 0.97, 1.72 |
| Vision disability | 1.85 | 1.37, 2.50* | 1.80 | 1.34, 2.44* | 1.74 | 1.29, 2.34* | 1.61 | 1.20, 2.18* |
| Cognition limitation | 2.59 | 2.08, 3.23* | 2.52 | 2.01, 3.15* | 2.41 | 1.92, 3.02* | 2.30 | 1.81, 2.91* |
| Difficulty walking | 1.81 | 1.48, 2.22* | 1.78 | 1.45, 2.19* | 1.72 | 1.40, 2.12* | 1.65 | 1.33, 2.04* |
| Difficulty dressing | 2.36 | 1.74, 3.20* | 2.27 | 1.66, 3.10* | 2.17 | 1.59, 2.95* | 2.02 | 1.48, 2.74* |
| Difficulty running errands | 1.88 | 1.45, 2.41* | 1.85 | 1.42, 2.37* | 1.78 | 1.36, 2.27* | 1.63 | 1.25, 2.13* |
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
A Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, stateB Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity
C Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status
D Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status, education, household income
Missing or unknown data were excluded from models.
Asterisks indicate statistical significance at the p<0.05 level.
Table 4.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Models of the Association of Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual (LGB) identity with Chronic Health Conditions, Disability, and Cognitive and Physical Limitations (Non-LGB N=39,333, LGB N=1,653)
| A Models | B Models | C Models | D Models | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | |
|
| ||||||||
| Chronic Health Conditions | ||||||||
| Angina or heart disease | 1.30 | 0.94, 1.78 | 1.30 | 0.94, 1.78 | 1.26 | 0.91, 1.74 | 1.23 | 0.89, 1.69 |
| Asthma | 1.71 | 1.37, 2.13* | 1.69 | 1.35, 2.11* | 1.62 | 1.30, 2.02* | 1.54 | 1.24, 1.92* |
| COPD | 1.34 | 1.04, 1.74* | 1.35 | 1.04, 1.75* | 1.21 | 0.93, 1.58 | 1.15 | 0.87, 1.52 |
| Depressive disorder | 2.15 | 1.77, 2.60* | 2.15 | 1.77, 2.60* | 2.08 | 1.71, 2.52* | 1.97 | 1.62, 2.40* |
| Myocardial Infarction | 1.42 | 1.03, 1.97* | 1.41 | 1.03, 1.94* | 1.33 | 0.97, 1.82 | 1.29 | 0.95, 1.76 |
| Kidney disease | 1.62 | 1.16, 2.27* | 1.60 | 1.15, 2.23* | 1.58 | 1.14, 2.20* | 1.54 | 1.11, 2.13* |
| Stroke | 1.86 | 1.37, 2.54* | 1.84 | 1.35, 2.50* | 1.79 | 1.32, 2.43* | 1.74 | 1.28, 2.35* |
| Diabetes | 1.37 | 1.08, 1.74* | 1.34 | 1.06, 1.69* | 1.32 | 1.04, 1.67* | 1.31 | 1.03, 1.67* |
| Disability and Limitations | ||||||||
| Hearing disability | 1.34 | 0.99, 1.81 | 1.34 | 0.99, 1.81 | 1.30 | 0.96, 1.75 | 1.29 | 0.96, 1.73 |
| Vision disability | 1.83 | 1.35, 2.50* | 1.79 | 1.31, 2.44* | 1.71 | 1.26, 2.32* | 1.58 | 1.16, 2.15* |
| Cognition limitation | 2.60 | 2.08, 3.25* | 2.53 | 2.01, 3.18* | 2.41 | 1.91, 3.04* | 2.30 | 1.80, 2.92* |
| Difficulty walking | 1.84 | 1.50, 2.27* | 1.81 | 1.47, 2.24* | 1.74 | 1.41, 2.15* | 1.66 | 1.33, 2.07* |
| Difficulty dressing | 2.39 | 1.75, 3.26* | 2.30 | 1.68, 3.16* | 2.18 | 1.59, 2.99* | 2.03 | 1.48, 2.78* |
| Difficulty running errands | 1.93 | 1.50, 2.50* | 1.90 | 1.47, 2.47* | 1.82 | 1.41, 2.35* | 1.67 | 1.28, 2.19* |
LGB: Cisgender lesbian, gay, and bisexual cancer survivors
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
A Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, stateB Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity
C Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status
D Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status, education, household income
Missing or unknown data were excluded from models.
Asterisks indicate statistical significance at the p<0.05 level.
Table 5.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Models of the Association of Transgender or Gender Non-conforming (TGNC) identity with Chronic Health Conditions, Disability, and Cognitive and Physical Limitations (Non-TGNC N=40,864, TGNC N=114)
| A Models | B Models | C Models | D Models | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||||
| aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | aOR | 95 CI | |
|
| ||||||||
| Chronic Health Conditions | ||||||||
| Angina or heart disease | 3.93 | 1.21, 12.80* | 3.96 | 1.21, 12.97* | 3.99 | 1.28, 12.46* | 3.67 | 1.27, 10.63* |
| Asthma | 2.81 | 1.34, 5.90* | 2.76 | 1.31, 5.83* | 2.62 | 1.31, 5.23* | 2.34 | 1.21, 4.55* |
| COPD | 3.60 | 1.41, 9.23* | 3.72 | 1.44, 9.60* | 3.53 | 1.64, 7.60* | 3.07 | 1.53, 6.17* |
| Depressive disorder | 1.27 | 0.60, 2.71 | 1.27 | 0.60, 2.68 | 1.19 | 0.51, 2.78 | 1.07 | 0.42, 2.73 |
| Myocardial Infarction | 6.63 | 2.47, 17.77* | 6.41 | 2.39, 17.24* | 6.19 | 2.56, 14.94* | 5.70 | 2.53, 12.86* |
| Kidney disease | 6.86 | 2.80, 16.79* | 6.64 | 2.70, 16.35* | 6.57 | 2.78, 15.53* | 6.03 | 2.73, 13.34* |
| Stroke | 5.40 | 1.82, 16.05* | 5.12 | 1.69, 15.54* | 4.91 | 1.70, 14.18* | 4.39 | 1.63, 11.83* |
| Diabetes | 4.48 | 1.79, 11.24* | 4.03 | 1.61, 10.07* | 4.05 | 1.68, 9.79* | 3.85 | 1.69, 8.75* |
| Disability and Limitations | ||||||||
| Hearing disability | 3.19 | 0.96, 10.61 | 3.22 | 0.98, 10.56 | 3.21 | 1.06, 9.72* | 3.05 | 1.11, 8.37* |
| Vision disability | 5.26 | 2.08, 13.30* | 4.90 | 1.89, 12.68* | 4.50 | 1.93, 10.46* | 3.68 | 1.80, 7.52* |
| Cognition limitation | 5.79 | 3.10, 10.80* | 5.39 | 2.83, 10.28* | 4.92 | 2.69, 8.98* | 4.37 | 2.33, 8.20* |
| Difficulty walking | 3.49 | 1.54, 7.90* | 3.27 | 1.44, 7.42* | 3.07 | 1.52, 6.19* | 2.66 | 1.49, 4.72* |
| Difficulty dressing | 6.33 | 2.67, 15.01* | 5.72 | 2.30, 14.24* | 5.28 | 2.36, 11.82* | 4.37 | 2.08, 9.21* |
| Difficulty running errands | 4.10 | 1.92, 8.74* | 3.96 | 1.82, 8.64* | 3.64 | 1.79, 7.42* | 3.08 | 1.43, 6.65* |
TGNC: Transgender or gender non-conforming cancer survivors regardless of sexual orientation
COPD: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
A Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, stateB Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity
C Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status
D Models control for: age at survey, year of survey, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status, education, household income
Missing or unknown data were excluded from models.
Asterisks indicate statistical significance at the p<0.05 level.
Two sensitivity analyses were conducted. First, we re-ran LGBTQ+ prevalence estimates and LGBTQ+ multivariable models while our sample was restricted to the five states which collected both the SOGI and cancer survivorship BRFSS modules across all three years (Hawaii, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Wisconsin). This analysis was conducted to assess between state effects as the SOGI and cancer survivorship modules were not consistently collected by the 23 states in the main analysis. Second, we re-ran LGBTQ+ prevalence estimates and LGBTQ+ multivariable models while excluding survivors from the sample who reported a skin cancer diagnosis. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05; analyses do not adjust for multiple testing (10, 11). All analyses were conducted using R, version 4.2.1.
Data Availability
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data is publicly available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
Results
From 2020–2022, 4.2% of 40,990 cancer survivors in our BRFSS analysis were identified as LGBTQ+ (n=1,715). A total of 638 (1.5%) were identified as lesbian or gay, 551 (1.6%) as bisexual, 458 (1.2%) as another non-heterosexual sexual orientation (total LGB=1,601, 3.9%). Among the 114 (0.3%) transgender or gender non-conforming (TGNC) survivors 38 (0.1%) identified as transgender men, 43 (0.1%) identified as transgender women, and 33 (0.1%) identified as gender non-conforming. LGBTQ+ cancer survivors were significantly more racially and ethnically diverse, lower household income, younger age at survey, and younger age at diagnosis than non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors (Table 1). LGBTQ+ cancer survivors were also more likely to report being current smokers than non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors. The most common diagnoses among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors were skin cancer, melanoma, other cancers, breast cancer, and whereas the most common diagnoses among non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors were skin cancer, melanoma, breast cancer, and prostate cancer. State, year, and education did not significantly differ by LGBTQ+ status.
Age-adjusted Prevalence Estimates for Health Conditions, Disabilities, and Limitations
When adjusting for age at interview in Table 2, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors had significantly higher prevalence of all chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations included in this analysis. The highest prevalence estimates among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors included asthma (30.7%, 95% CI: 23.8–37.5, Table 2), depressive disorders (48.5%, 95% CI: 40.3–56.8), cognitive limitations (37.9%, 95% CI: 29.2–46.5), and difficulty walking (31.4%, 95% CI: 24.7–38.1). The largest differences in age-adjusted prevalence estimates were in cognitive limitations (37.9% vs. 15.9%, p<0.001), depressive disorders (48.5% vs. 29.5%, p<0.001), difficulty walking (31.4% vs. 18.5%, p<0.001), and difficulty running errands (23.7% vs. 11.6%, p<0.001). While smaller but still significant differences were observed in COPD, hearing disabilities, heart disease, as well as other conditions and limitations (Table 2).
When age-adjusted prevalence estimates for each outcome were generated for LGB and TGNC population separately, both LGB and TGNC estimates for each outcome remained higher than non-LGBTQ+ prevalence estimates (Table 2). For most outcomes TGNC survivors had higher age-adjusted prevalence than cisgender LGB survivors including asthma (38.8% vs. 29.5%), diabetes (42.9% vs. 17.5%), vision disabilities (30.1% vs. 11.5%), difficulty dressing (33.4% vs. 11.6%), and difficulty running errands (34.3% vs. 21.1%). However, cisgender LGB cancer survivors had higher prevalence of depressive disorders (49.9% vs. 34.3%) and cognitive limitations (35.7% vs. 21.9%) than TGNC survivors.
Multivariable Logistic Regression Estimates for Health Conditions, Disabilities, and Limitations
In multivariable models controlling for: age, survey year, and state (Table 3, A models); models controlling for age, survey year, state, race and ethnicity (Table 3, B models); and models control age, survey year, state, race and ethnicity, and smoking status (Table 3, C models) LGBTQ+ cancer survivors were at higher odds of reporting nearly every outcome. The addition of race and ethnicity and smoking status in B models and C models resulted in small decreases in the magnitude of association between LGBTQ+ status and each outcome (Table 3). In final models controlling for all previous factors as well as socioeconomic factors such as education and household income (D models) resulted in LGBTQ+ cancer survivors being at higher odds of reporting asthma (aOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.24–1.91), depressive disorders (aOR: 1.94, 95% CI: 1.94–1.6–2.36), kidney disease (aOR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.12–2.11), stroke (aOR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.27–2.31), diabetes (aOR: 1.30, 95% CI: 1.02–1.64), vision disability (aOR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.20–2.18), cognition limitation (aOR: 2.30, 95% CI: 1.81–2.91), difficulty walking (aOR: 1.65, 95% CI: 1.33–2.04), difficulty dressing (aOR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.48–2.74), and difficulty running errands (aOR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.25–2.13).
When multivariable models were run comparing LGB survivors to non-LGB survivors, LGB specific models resulted in nearly identical results to the primary LGBTQ+ models (Table 4). However, when multivariable models were run to compare TGNC survivors to non-TGNC survivors estimate magnitudes increased substantially across most outcomes (Table 5). In multivariable models controlling for age, survey year, state, race and ethnicity, smoking status, education, and household income, TGNC survivors were at a higher odds of reporting heart disease (aOR: 3.67, 95% CI: 1.27–10.63), asthma (aOR: 2.34, 95% CI: 1.21–4.55), COPD (aOR: 3.07, 95% CI: 1.53–6.17), myocardial infarction (aOR: 5.70, 95% CI: 2.53–12.86), kidney disease (aOR: 6.03, 95% CI: 2.73–13.34), stroke (aOR: 4.39, 95% CI: 1.63–11.83), diabetes (aOR: 3.85, 95% CI: 1.69–8.75), hearing disabilities (aOR: 3.05, 95% CI: 1.11–8.37), vision disabilities (aOR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.80–7.52), cognitive limitations (aOR: 4.37, 95% CI: 2.33–8.20), difficulty walking (aOR: 2.66, 95% CI: 1.49–4.72), difficulty dressing (aOR: 4.37, 95% CI: 2.08–9.21), and difficulty running errands (aOR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.43–6.65).
Sensitivity Analyses
In sensitivity analyses restricting analyses to states that had consistent SOGI and cancer survivorship module data collection 2020–2022, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors prevalence estimates for outcomes and adjusted odds ratios were similar (Supplemental Tables 1 & 2). Further, in sensitivity analyses excluding skin cancer survivors, LGBTQ+ cancer survivor prevalence estimates for outcomes and adjusted odds ratios were similar to main primary analysis estimates (Supplemental Tables 3 & 4).
Discussion
In our analysis, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors had a significantly higher age-adjusted prevalence of all chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations than non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors. Further, when comparing cisgender LGB and TGNC populations, transgender and gender non-conforming survivors (of any sexual orientation) had higher age-adjusted prevalence estimates for most outcomes except for depression and cognitive limitations in which cisgender lesbian, gay, and bisexual survivors had higher prevalence. Furthermore, after controlling for risk factors, such as smoking and socioeconomic status, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors remained at higher odds of reporting asthma, depressive disorders, kidney disease, stroke, diabetes, cognitive limitations, as well as difficulty walking, dressing, and running errands. These findings align with other recent studies indicating that LGBTQ+ cancer survivors, as well as the general LGBTQ+ population, are at an elevated risk of chronic health conditions (12–14).
However, our findings demonstrate higher prevalence estimates of many chronic conditions in LGBTQ+ cancer survivors in comparison to LGBTQ+ individuals without cancer and the overall general population from the literature including asthma, stroke, kidney disease, and diabetes (13, 15–21). These findings can be contextualized, for example, in the LGBTQ+ smoking cessation and stroke risk factor literature which highlights upstream factors that drive smoking and stroke in LGBTQ+ populations, including structural forces such as identity-related stigma and minority stress (8, 22). Such structural forces have also been observed to drive higher rates of behaviors such as smoking and alcohol use—risk factors for many of the chronic conditions in this analysis as well as many cancers (23, 24). Future inquiry would benefit from further disentangling the influence of structural forces, health behaviors, and chronic health conditions in order to tailor interventions to the LGBTQ+ cancer survivor population.
Findings from our study demonstrate a higher prevalence of difficulty with activities of daily living (ADLs, e.g., difficulty walking) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLS, e.g., running errands) in LGBTQ+ cancer survivors than non-LGBTQ+ cancer survivors. Specifically, TGNC survivors had greatest prevalence of difficulty with ADLs and IADLs than LGB cancer survivors. These findings build upon recent literature that demonstrated that older LGB adults (aged >50 years old)had a higher prevalence of difficulty with ADLs and IADLs (35.9%) than non-LGB populations (20.9%) (25). Integration of prehabilitation (i.e., preparation of the patient to improve their physical functioning prior to cancer treatment) tailored to the LGBTQ+ community may be particularly important for LGBTQ+ cancer survivors (26). Barriers to health care utilization (e.g., worry or avoidance of health care settings because of discrimination or cost) may contribute to associations observed with ADLs and IADLs (27, 28).
Further our findings are consistent with previous literature that found that TGNC cancer survivors were at elevated odds of some of the conditions that we report in this study including diabetes (29). However, our findings provide a more recent and granular look at increased prevalence of nearly all chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations among transgender and gender non-conforming cancer survivors in the US. These findings can be contextualized in the literature that demonstrated that transgender individuals in the general population report more chronic conditions than their cisgender counterparts (30, 31). Transgender and gender diverse populations also have higher prevalence of risk factors for chronic health conditions such as smoking and heavy alcohol use (32). Our findings and the existing literature can all be contextualized in cissexism and transphobia that effects every level of society from anti-transgender legislation to healthcare discrimination to minority stress and ultimately poor health outcomes (33–35).
In our sample, half of LGBTQ+ cancer survivors reported a depressive disorder in their lifetime, reinforcing the need for LGBTQ+ specific cancer-related mental health services. Recent literature and the National LGBT Cancer Network reported that LGBTQ+ cancer survivors experience a high number of mentally unhealthy days (8.9 days per month), as well as 70% of LGBTQ+ survivors who had never had access to LGBTQ+ tailored mental health resources (36, 37). Depressive disorders among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors may also be intrinsically linked to cognitive limitations, as depression and other psychological factors are predictive of cognitive function in cancer survivors (38). Our findings are consistent with a higher prevalence of cognitive limitations in LGBTQ+ populations in general (39). Interventions to address risk factors for cognitive limitations such as stress and trauma, smoking, financial hardship, poor exercise and diet, and inflammation among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors may have benefit for cognitive function after cancer treatment (38).
Our findings must be considered within the context of the limitations of our data. While self-reporting is the preferred modality for ascertaining LGBTQ+ status, self-reported cancer status and chronic conditions may be subject to potential recall errors. Furthermore, the available smoking status variable lacks the specificity to assess pack-years, which may have further explained the findings. Our study is limited by a lack of cancer treatment data available as specific treatments are associated with conditions later in life. Less than 5% of respondents indicated an LGBTQ+ identity; in national samples from the Pew Research Center, this percentage exceeded 7% and may suggest that participants did not feel comfortable disclosing this information or that LGBTQ+ individuals were less likely to respond to BRFSS (3). By using a cross-sectional study design, cancer survivors additionally needed to survive and be well enough to respond to the BRFSS survey. This requirement may have resulted in the selection of healthier cancer survivors with less severe disease or treatment in our sample. Cancer survivorship and sexual and gender identity (SOGI) modules are optional for states to include and may not reflect the experiences of cancer survivors in states that did not elect to include cancer survivorship or the SOGI module.
Conclusion
In our analysis, LGBTQ+ cancer survivors had a significantly higher age-adjusted prevalence of most chronic health conditions, disabilities, and physical and cognitive limitations. When controlling for various sociodemographic factors, LGBTQ+ status remained significantly associated with asthma, depressive disorders, kidney disease, stroke, diabetes, vision disabilities, cognitive limitations as well as ADL and IADLs including difficulty walking, dressing, and running errands. Our findings highlight major gaps in prevalence of chronic health conditions, disabilities, and limitations among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors—with higher prevalence of most outcomes among transgender and gender non-conforming cancer survivors. Our findings reinforce the need for multilevel interventional approaches, from structural changes to patient-level to mitigate health disparities experienced by LGBTQ+ cancer survivors.
Supplementary Material
Acknowledgements:
Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health. Austin R. Waters is supported by the National Cancer Institute’s National Research Service Award sponsored by the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina (T32 CA116339). Hazel B. Nichols is supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (P01CA233432).
Footnotes
Conflicts of Interest: The authors report no conflicts of interest.
IRB Statement: This analysis was deemed exempt by the University of North Carolina Institutional Review Board.
Data Availability:
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data is publicly available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
References
- 1.American Cancer Society. Cancer treatment & survivorship facts & figures 2022–2024. American Cancer Society; Atlanta; 2022. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Holmes HM, Nguyen HT, Nayak P, Oh JH, Escalante CP, Elting LS. Chronic conditions and health status in older cancer survivors. European Journal of Internal Medicine. 2014;25(4):374–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Jones JM. LGBT Identification in U.S. Ticks Up to 7.1%: Gallup International; 2022. [Available from: https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx?utm_source=twitterbutton&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=sharing. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Matthews AK, Breen E, Kittiteerasack P. Social Determinants of LGBT Cancer Health Inequities. Seminars in Oncology Nursing. 2018;34(1):12–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Haarmann L, Lieker E, Folkerts A-K, Eichert K, Neidlinger M, Monsef I, et al. Higher Risk of Many Physical Health Conditions in Sexual Minority Men: Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis in Gay- and Bisexual-Identified Compared with Heterosexual-Identified Men. LGBT Health. 2023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Hutchcraft ML, Teferra AA, Montemorano L, Patterson JG. Differences in Health-Related Quality of Life and Health Behaviors Among Lesbian, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Women Surviving Cancer from the 2013 to 2018 National Health Interview Survey. LGBT Health. 2021;8(1):68–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Hatzenbuehler ML. Structural Stigma and the Health of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Populations. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2014;23(2):127–32. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Meyer IH, Frost DM. Minority stress and the health of sexual minorities. Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 252–66. [Google Scholar]
- 9.National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. Measuring sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation 2022. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Ranganathan P, Pramesh CS, Buyse M. Common pitfalls in statistical analysis: The perils of multiple testing. Perspect Clin Res. 2016;7(2):106–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Buyse M, Hurvitz S, Andre F, Jiang Z, Burris H, Toi M, et al. Statistical controversies in clinical research: statistical significance—too much of a good thing…. Annals of Oncology. 2016;27(5):760–2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Boehmer U, Chang S, Sanchez NF, Jesdale BM, Schabath MB. Cancer survivors’ health behaviors and outcomes: a population-based study of sexual and gender minorities. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2023;115(10):1164–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Pinnamaneni M, Payne L, Jackson J, Cheng C-I, Cascio MA. Disparities in chronic physical health conditions in sexual and gender minority people using the United States Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Preventive Medicine Reports. 2022;28:101881. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Berkman AM, Choi E, Cheung CK, Salsman JM, Peterson SK, Andersen CR, et al. Risk of chronic health conditions in lesbian, gay, and bisexual survivors of adolescent and young adult cancers. Cancer. 2023;n/a(n/a). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Job SA, Kaniuka AR, Reeves KM, Brooks BD. Interactions of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity with Race/Ethnicity in Prevalence of Lifetime and Current Asthma Diagnosis. LGBT Health. 2023;10(5):372–81. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Veldhuis CB, Bruzzese J-M, Hughes TL, George M. Asthma status and risks among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults in the United States: A scoping review. Annals of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. 2019;122(5):535–6.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Diaz MA, Rosendale N. Exploring Stroke Risk Factors and Outcomes in Sexual and Gender Minority People. Neurology Clinical Practice. 2023;13(1):e200106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Hanna B, Desai R, Parekh T, Guirguis E, Kumar G, Sachdeva R. Psychiatric disorders in the U.S. transgender population. Annals of Epidemiology. 2019;39:1–7.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ross LE, Salway T, Tarasoff LA, MacKay JM, Hawkins BW, Fehr CP. Prevalence of Depression and Anxiety Among Bisexual People Compared to Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual Individuals:A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Sex Research. 2018;55(4–5):435–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wang L, Li X, Wang Z, Bancks MP, Carnethon MR, Greenland P, et al. Trends in Prevalence of Diabetes and Control of Risk Factors in Diabetes Among US Adults, 1999–2018. JAMA. 2021;326(8):704–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Beach LB, Elasy TA, Gonzales G. Prevalence of Self-Reported Diabetes by Sexual Orientation: Results from the 2014 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. LGBT Health. 2018;5(2):121–30. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Burkhalter JE. Smoking in the LGBT Community. In: Boehmer U, Elk R, editors. Cancer and the LGBT Community: Unique Perspectives from Risk to Survivorship. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2015. p. 63–80. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Everett BG, Hatzenbuehler ML, Hughes TL. The impact of civil union legislation on minority stress, depression, and hazardous drinking in a diverse sample of sexual-minority women: A quasi-natural experiment. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;169:180–90. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Li M, Chau K, Calabresi K, Wang Y, Wang J, Fritz J, et al. The Effect of Minority Stress Processes on Smoking for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Individuals: A Systematic Review. LGBT Health. 2024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Travers JL, Shippee TP, Flatt JD, Caceres BA. Functional Limitations and Access to Long-Term Services and Supports Among Sexual Minority Older Adults. J Appl Gerontol. 2022;41(9):2056–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Molenaar CJL, Minnella EM, Coca-Martinez M, ten Cate DWG, Regis M, Awasthi R, et al. Effect of Multimodal Prehabilitation on Reducing Postoperative Complications and Enhancing Functional Capacity Following Colorectal Cancer Surgery: The PREHAB Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Surgery. 2023;158(6):572–81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Alencar Albuquerque G, de Lima Garcia C, da Silva Quirino G, Alves MJH, Belém JM, dos Santos Figueiredo FW, et al. Access to health services by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons: systematic literature review. BMC International Health and Human Rights. 2016;16(1):2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Boehmer U, Gereige J, Winter M, Ozonoff A. Cancer survivors’ access to care and quality of life: Do sexual minorities fare worse than heterosexuals? Cancer. 2019;125(17):3079–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Boehmer U, Gereige J, Winter M, Ozonoff A, Scout N. Transgender individuals’ cancer survivorship: Results of a cross-sectional study. Cancer. 2020;126(12):2829–36. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Dragon CN, Guerino P, Ewald E, Laffan AM. Transgender Medicare Beneficiaries and Chronic Conditions: Exploring Fee-for-Service Claims Data. LGBT Health. 2017;4(6):404–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Hughes L, Shireman TI, Hughto J. Privately Insured Transgender People Are At Elevated Risk For Chronic Conditions Compared With Cisgender Counterparts. Health Affairs. 2021;40(9):1440–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Leone AG, Trapani D, Schabath MB, Safer JD, Scout NFN, Lambertini M, et al. Cancer in Transgender and Gender-Diverse Persons: A Review. JAMA Oncology. 2023;9(4):556–63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Cunningham GB, Watanabe NM, Buzuvis E. Anti-transgender rights legislation and internet searches pertaining to depression and suicide. PLOS ONE. 2022;17(12):e0279420. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Puckett JA, Aboussouan AB, Ralston AL, Mustanski B, Newcomb ME. Systems of cissexism and the daily production of stress for transgender and gender diverse people. International Journal of Transgender Health. 2023;24(1):113–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kcomt L Profound health-care discrimination experienced by transgender people: rapid systematic review. Social Work in Health Care. 2019;58(2):201–19. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Scout N, Rhoten B. OUT: The National Cancer Survey, Summary of Findings. Providence, RI: National LGBT Cancer Network; 2021. [Google Scholar]
- 37.Waters AR, Lyerly R, Scout NFN, Kent EE. The impact of employment loss on mentally unhealthy days among LGBTQ+ cancer survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the OUT National Survey. Psycho-Oncology. 2023;n/a(n/a). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Ahles TA, Root JC. Cognitive Effects of Cancer and Cancer Treatments. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2018;14(1):425–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Romanelli RJ, Rosenblatt AS, Marcum ZA, Flatt JD. Cognitive Impairment in Sexual and Gender Minority Groups: A Scoping Review of the Literature. LGBT Health. 2023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data is publicly available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.
Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data is publicly available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website.