Sexual minority health and allostatic load in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey: A systematic scoping review with intersectional implications.

Understood largely from a minority stress framework, sexual minorities (SM) are hypothesized to suffer more physical and mental health burdens compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Several studies have used data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) in the United States to assess SM health disparities and the 'wear and tear' of allostatic load. Because findings are generally mixed and sometimes contradictory with sexual minority stress theory, we endeavoured to explore existing NHANES studies of SM health. Our scoping review yielded a comprehensive analysis of all existing published articles (N = 43) that have used the NHANES to assess any outcome regarding SM health and well-being. Our synthesis confirms that SM sub-groups are significantly different from one another and from their heterosexual peers on several key health variables. Surprisingly, gay men appear to have the lowest allostatic load and no differences have yet been identified among women as a function of sexual identity/behavior. The existing literature suggests a need to use the NHANES more broadly and to include more psychosocial variables to better delineate sexual minority stress. This is especially important to consider at a physiological level in allostatic load research that should better include health behaviors available in NHANES and from other available datasets as moderators linking psychosocial exposures (e.g., minority stress) and health outcomes. Suggested future directions are proposed in an intersectional perspective that incorporates interactions among sex, gender, sexual identity/behaviors, race, ethnicity, age cohorts, socioeconomic status, and lived experiences.

Sex and Gender and Allostatic Mechanisms of Cardiovascular Risk and Disease.

Cardiovascular diseases are leading causes of mortality and morbidity in adults worldwide. Multiple studies suggest that there are clinically relevant sex differences in cardiovascular disease. Women and men differ substantially in terms of prevalence, presentation, management, and outcomes of cardiovascular disease. To date, however, little is known about why cardiovascular disease affects women and men differently. Because many studies do not differentiate the concept of sex and gender, it is sometimes difficult to discriminate sociocultural vs biological contributors that drive observed clinical differences. Female sex has some biological advantages in relation to cardiovascular disease, but many of these advantages seem to disappear as soon as women develop cardiovascular risk factors (eg, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia). Furthermore, stress and allostatic load could play an important role in the relationship between sex/gender and cardiovascular diseases. In this narrative review, we argue that chronic stress and psychosocial factors might better encompass the patterns of allostatic load increases seen in women, while biological risk factors and unhealthy behaviours might be more important mechanisms that drive increased allostatic load in men. Indeed, men show allostatic load patterns that are more associated with impaired anthropometric, metabolic, and cardiovascular functioning and women have greater dysregulation in neuroendocrine and immune functioning. Thus gender-related factors might contribute to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease especially through stress mechanisms. It is important to continue to study the mechanisms by which gender influences chronic stress, because chronic stress could influence modifiable gendered factors to promote cardiovascular disease prevention.