Intimate partner violence is related to future alcohol use among a nationwide sample of LGBTQIA+ people: Results from The PRIDE Study.

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, aromantic and asexual (LGBTQIA+) communities in the United States experience higher rates of alcohol use than the general population. While experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) is thought to lead to increased alcohol use in LGBTQIA+ people, little research has investigated the temporal relationship between IPV and alcohol use in this population. METHODS: Data from two annual questionnaires of The Population Research in Identity and Disparities for Equality Study (The PRIDE Study) longitudinal cohort (n=3,783) were included. Overall IPV and three sub-types (physical, sexual, and emotional) - measured in 2021 using the extended Hurt, Insult, Threaten, Scream (E-HITS) screening tool - was examined as a predictor of Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) score in 2022 using multivariable linear regression to assess linear and quadratic associations. Models were adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and history of alcohol use. RESULTS: One-quarter (24.7%) of respondents reported experiencing past-year IPV in 2021. The mean AUDIT score in 2022 was 3.52 (SD = 4.13). In adjusted models, both linear (B: 0.26, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.38) and quadratic (B: -0.03, 95% CI: -0.04, -0.01) terms for overall IPV were significantly associated with next-year AUDIT score. These patterns were mirrored in each IPV sub-type, were not attenuated when accounting for relationship characteristics, and were heterogeneous across gender identity groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results provide evidence of a temporal relationship between IPV and alcohol use in LGBTQIA+ communities, suggesting that efforts to prevent and mitigate IPV may help reduce alcohol use disparities in this population.

Intersectional Disparities in Emergency Medicine Residents' Performance Assessments by Race, Ethnicity, and Sex.

Importance: Previous studies have demonstrated sex-specific disparities in performance assessments among emergency medicine (EM) residents. However, less work has focused on intersectional disparities by ethnoracial identity and sex in resident performance assessments. Objective: To estimate intersectional sex-specific ethnoracial disparities in standardized EM resident assessments. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Milestones (Milestones) assessments to evaluate ratings for EM residents at 128 EM training programs in the US. Statistical analyses were conducted in June 2020 to January 2023. Exposure: Training and assessment environments in EM residency programs across comparison groups defined by ethnoracial identity (Asian, White, or groups underrepresented in medicine [URM], ie, African American/Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latine, and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander) and sex (female/male). Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean Milestone scores (scale, 0-9) across 6 core competency domains: interpersonal and communications skills, medical knowledge, patient care, practice-based learning and improvement, professionalism, and system-based practice. Overall assessment scores were calculated as the mean of the 6 competency scores. Results: The study sample comprised 128 ACGME-accredited programs and 16 634 assessments for 2708 EM residents of which 1913 (70.6%) were in 3-year and 795 (29.4%) in 4-year programs. Most of the residents were White (n = 2012; 74.3%), followed by Asian (n = 477; 17.6%), Hispanic or Latine (n = 213; 7.9%), African American or Black (n = 160; 5.9%), American Indian or Alaska Native (n = 24; 0.9%), and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander (n = 4; 0.1%). Approximately 14.3% (n = 386) and 34.6% (n = 936) were of URM groups and female, respectively. Compared with White male residents, URM female residents in 3-year programs were rated increasingly lower in the medical knowledge (URM female score, -0.47; 95% CI, -0.77 to -0.17), patient care (-0.18; 95% CI, -0.35 to -0.01), and practice-based learning and improvement (-0.37; 95% CI, -0.65 to -0.09) domains by postgraduate year 3 year-end assessment; URM female residents in 4-year programs were also rated lower in all 6 competencies over the assessment period. Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that URM female residents were consistently rated lower than White male residents on Milestone assessments, findings that may reflect intersectional discrimination in physician competency evaluation. Eliminating sex-specific ethnoracial disparities in resident assessments may contribute to equitable health care by removing barriers to retention and promotion of underrepresented and minoritized trainees and facilitating diversity and representation among the emergency physician workforce.

Examining unmet needs: a cross-sectional study exploring knowledge, attitudes and sexually transmitted infection screening preferences among persons who inject drugs in Camden, New Jersey.

OBJECTIVES: To inform the development of targeted sexually transmitted infection (STI) control programmes for persons who inject drugs (PWID). METHODS: We recruited 116 PWID (aged ≥ 18 years) from a community-based syringe exchange programme (SEP) and assessed their STI knowledge and screening preferences via technology assisted self-interview. We estimated prevalence of STI transmission knowledge, attitudes and screening preferences as well as the association between reported sexual behaviours (past 6 months) and willingness to self-collect specimens. RESULTS: Participants were white (77%), female (51%) and heterosexual (77%). STI knowledge regarding transmission and testing was high among the sample. More than 70% of participants were aware extragenital infections were possible and were least likely to know urine tests do not detect rectal infections (40.9%). Site-specific specimen collection was highly reflective of reported sexual behaviour. PWID who reported receptive sex (36% vs 5%, p<0.01) and insertive anal sex (31% vs 6%, p=0.01) were more likely to collect rectal specimens than those who did not. A similar trend was seen for oral sex performance on men and self-collection of oropharyngeal swabs (15% vs 3%, p=0.04). In addition, participants preferred collecting their own sample to having a clinician collect it for them (69% vs 31%, p<0.01) and testing at the SEP compared with a STI clinic (86% vs 14%, p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest site-specific specimen collection may be a proxy for risk behaviour engagement in this fairly knowledgeable high-risk population. To increase case finding, STI control programmes should educate patients about site-specific screening and pair outreach with the infrastructure provided by SEPs, in settings where these programmes exist.