4.6 Article

The social determinants of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth suicidality in England: a mixed methods study

Journal

JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Volume 40, Issue 3, Pages E244-E251

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdx135

Keywords

mental health; social determinants; young people; sexual orientation; gender identity

Funding

  1. Department of Health Policy Research Programme [RRD: 023/0168]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth have a higher risk of suicidality and self-harm than heterosexual youth populations but little is known about the underlying mechanisms. We aimed to investigate the social determinants of this mental health inequality. Methods A two-stage sequential mixed method study was conducted. Firstly, 29 semi-structured interviews with LGBT youth (aged 13-25 years old) were completed. Data was analysed thematically. Stage 2 involved a self-completed questionnaire employing an online community-based sampling strategy (n = 789). Logistic regression analysis was performed to predict suicidality. Results Five social determinants explained suicidal risk: (i) homophobia, biphobia or transphobia; (ii) sexual and gender norms; (iii) managing sexual and gender identities across multiple life domains; (iv) being unable to talk; (v) other life crises. Youth who were transgender (OR = 1.50, P < 0.022), disabled (OR = 2.23, P < 0.000), had self-harmed (OR = 7.45, P < 0.000), were affected by abuse (OR = 2.14, P < 0.000), and affected by not talking about their emotions (OR = 2.43, P < 0.044) were most likely to have planned or attempted suicide. Conclusions Public health universal interventions that tackle bullying and discrimination in schools, and selected interventions that provide specific LGBT youth mental health support could reduce LGBT mental health inequalities in youth suicidality.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available