Veterans' Reported Comfort in Disclosing Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) does not routinely collect and document sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) data despite research on health disparities among sexual and gender minority (SGM) veterans. Due to the legacy of previous Department of Defense policies that prohibited disclosure of sexual or gender minority identities among active-duty personnel, minority veterans may be reluctant to respond to SOGI questions on confidential VHA surveys and in discussions with their VHA providers. Veterans may generally find SOGI questions uncomfortable and may not appreciate their relevance to health care. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to examine veterans' comfort in reporting identity characteristics on confidential VHA surveys and in discussion with their VHA providers and whether comfort differed by sociodemographic characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN: The project involves the secondary analysis of quantitative data from a quality improvement survey project. SUBJECTS: A total of 806 veterans were surveyed. RESULTS: Overall, 7.15% endorsed sexual or gender minority identity which is a higher rate than the 4.5% noted in the general US population. Cisgender and heterosexual veterans were more comfortable reporting identity characteristics both on VHA confidential surveys and in discussion with VHA providers compared with SGM veterans. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the majority of veterans feel comfortable reporting their identities both on surveys and in the context of health care. Understanding these perceptions can assist VHA programs in implementing SOGI data collection and disclosure in clinical care, creating a welcoming environment of care for SGM veterans that does not make veterans from other backgrounds feel uncomfortable.

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Veterans' Experiences of Discrimination in Health Care and Their Relation to Health Outcomes: A Pilot Study Examining the Moderating Role of Provider Communication.

Purpose: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) veterans report discrimination in health care, which may be associated with negative health outcomes/behaviors and has implications for LGBT identity disclosure to providers. Quality provider communication may serve to offset some of the deleterious effects of discrimination; however, no research to date has examined provider communication with respect to health among LGBT patients. Methods: Participants were 47 LGBT veterans who completed measures related to past health care experiences, experiences of discrimination in health care, perceptions of provider communication, and measures of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and alcohol/tobacco use. Results: The majority of LGBT veterans reported experiencing LGBT-based discrimination in health care, which was associated with higher rates of tobacco use and less comfort in disclosing their LGBT identity to providers. We also found evidence of moderation, such that high-quality provider communication appeared to buffer these associations. Conclusion: LGBT veterans face unique challenges with respect to receiving appropriate health care. The high frequencies of reported discrimination in health care is problematic and warrants further research and intervention. These results highlight the important role of provider communication, and the potential for quality communication to buffer against certain effects, particularly with respect to tobacco use and LGBT identity disclosure, which is an important protective factor.

Experiences of trauma, discrimination, microaggressions, and minority stress among trauma-exposed LGBT veterans: Unexpected findings and unresolved service gaps.

OBJECTIVE: LGBT veterans experience high rates of trauma, discrimination, and minority stress. However, guidelines for case conceptualization and treatment remain limited. The aim of the current study was to examine the experiences of trauma and other high impact experiences among LGBT veterans to inform case conceptualization and treatment. METHOD: We recruited 47 LGBT veterans with a history of exposure to LGBT-related Criterion A trauma and performed semistructured interviews about their experiences in trauma treatment, barriers to engagement, and treatment needs and preferences. We used thematic analysis of qualitative codes guided by inductive and deductive approaches to characterize the variety of trauma and high impact experiences reported. RESULTS: LGBT veterans disclosed a range of clinically relevant stressors, including Criterion A traumatic events, minority stress, and microaggression experiences, including interpersonal and institutional discrimination perpetrated by fellow service members/veterans, citizens, therapy group members, and health care providers. CONCLUSION: These data provide a unique account of LGBT veteran's identity-related trauma and concomitant interpersonal and institutional discrimination, microaggression experiences, minority stress, and traumatic stress symptoms. Findings highlight existing service gaps regarding evidence-based treatments for the sequalae of trauma, discrimination, microaggressions, and minority stress. In addition, we noted past and present issues in military and health care settings that may lead to or exacerbate trauma-related distress and discourage treatment seeking among LGBT veterans. We provide suggestions for clinical work with LGBT veterans and encourage ongoing research and development to eliminate remaining service gaps. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Advancing LGBT Health Care Policies and Clinical Care Within a Large Academic Health Care System: A Case Study.

Culturally competent health care is especially important among sexual and gender minority patients because poor cultural competence contributes to health disparities. There is a need to understand how to improve health care quality and delivery for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) veterans in particular, because they have unique physical and mental health needs as both LGBT individuals and veterans. The following article is a case study that focuses on the policy and clinical care practices related to LGBT clinical competency, professional training, and ethical provision of care for veteran patients in the VA Boston Healthcare System. We apply Betancourt et al.'s (2003) cultural competence framework to outline the steps that VA Boston Healthcare System took to increase cultural competency at the organizational, structural, and clinical level. By sharing our experiences, we aim to provide a model and steps for other health care systems and programs, including other VA health care systems, large academic health care systems, community health care systems, and mental health care systems, interested in developing LGBT health initiatives.

Understanding Health-Care Needs of Sexual and Gender Minority Veterans: How Targeted Research and Policy Can Improve Health.

Given the size of the patient population of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), it is likely the largest single provider of health care for sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals in the United States, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons. However, current VHA demographic data-collection strategies limit the understanding of how many SGM veterans there are, thereby making a population-based understanding of the health needs of SGM veterans receiving care in VHA difficult. In this article, we summarize the emergent research findings about SGM veterans and the first initiatives that have been implemented by VHA to promote quality care. Though the research on SGM veterans is in its infancy, it suggests that SGM veterans share some of the health risks noted in veterans generally and also risks associated with SGM status. Some promising resiliency factors have also been identified. These findings have implications for both VHA and non-VHA systems in the treatment of SGM veterans. However, more research on the unique needs of SGM veterans is needed to fully understand their health risks and resiliencies in addition to health-care utilization patterns.