Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2021 Jul 26.
Published in final edited form as: Prev Med. 2020 Jan 22;132:105999. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.105999

Table 3.

Adjusted1 log binomial models of the interaction between male sex and sexual orientation differences in usual place of care and unmet needs for care in three cohorts of U.S. men and women (N = 31,172) collected from 1996 to 2019.2

Over 1 year since last exam Delayed care for at least 1 reason Delayed care since symptoms not serious enough Public clinic as place of usual care Ever lapse in insurance coverage
RR3 (95% CI)3 RR3 (95% CI)3 RR3 (95% CI)3 RR3 (95% CI)3 RR3 (95% CI)3
Male (ref: female) 1.69 (1.51, 1.77) 1.10 (1.08, 1.13) 1.12 (1.09, 1.15) 1.01 (0.88, 1.16) 1.16 (1.01, 1.33)
Mostly heterosexual 1.16 (1.11, 1.22) 1.10 (1.07, 1.12) 1.07 (1.04, 1.09) 2.00 (1.78, 2.24) 1.76 (1.56, 1.99)
Bisexual 1.10 (1.08, 1.34) 1.12 (1.07, 1.17) 1.05 (0.99, 1.12) 2.85 (2.34, 3.48) 2.12 (1.67, 2.69)
Gay/lesbian 1.15 (1.02, 1.31) 1.08 (1.03, 1.14) 1.06 (0.99, 1.12) 1.74 (1.28, 2.36) 1.68 (1.23, 2.29)
Mostly heterosexual * male 0.87 (0.79, 0.95) 0.96 (0.91, 1.01) 0.95 (0.89, 1.01) 0.79 (0.60, 1.04) 0.92 (0.69, 1.21)
Bisexual * male 0.84 (0.65, 1.11) 0.87 (0.71, 1.07) 1.00 (0.81, 1.24) 0.55 (0.24, 1.24) 0.50 (0.16, 1.52)
Gay/lesbian * male 0.78 (0.65, 0.93) 0.79 (0.70, 0.88) 0.81 (0.71, 0.92) 1.74 (1.17, 2.58 0.54 (0.30, 0.96)
1

Models adjusted for race/ethnicity, study cohort, and age.

2

Outcomes only included in table for models that contained a significant interaction between sex and sexual orientation. All other outcomes did not contain a significant interaction (ps > 0.05). Due to model convergence issues due to small sample size distribution, the “bad prior experiences” model was not tested with an interaction term, thus its omission does not represent lack of significance.

3

Reference group is completely heterosexuals and female sex; RR is “risk ratio,” CI is “confidence interval.”