Understanding Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Aging Through a Patient-Centered Lens in the Health and Retirement Study

Clicks: 1
ID: 324350
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #154 of 155 articles by views in the gerontologist

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 155 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives Guided by Andersen’s Behavioral Model of Health Services Use, this study examined how predisposing, enabling, and need factors shape self-rated health, healthcare utilization, and financial burden among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) and non-LGB midlife and older adults over time, and incorporated patient expert perspectives. Research Design and Methods This multi-method study used the 2016, 2018, and 2020 waves of the RAND 2020 longitudinal file of the Health and Retirement Study for respondents aged ≥51 years with sexual orientation data. Generalized linear mixed model estimated odds of hospital nights, doctor visits, prescription drug use, chronic conditions, self-rated health, and out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures by LGB status and time, with interaction terms assessing changes across waves. Patient engagement studio sessions with adults aged ≥50 years provided perspectives on healthcare experiences and barriers. Results Among 13,376 respondents, LGB midlife and older adults had similar self-rated health and chronic condition burden as non-LGB peers but higher odds of prescription drug use, fewer doctor visits, and lower OOP expenditures across waves. No significant LGB x time interaction terms were observed, indicating stable disparities over 2016-2020. Patient experts reported mistrust of providers, difficulty finding affirming clinicians, social isolation, mental health needs, and limited insurance literacy. Discussion and Implications Findings suggest underuse of ambulatory care and potential unmet needs among LGB midlife and older adults despite comparable health status, driven by enabling and contextual barriers rather than need alone. Implications include affirming geriatric and primary care models, tailored navigation support, and co-designed multilevel interventions to advance health equity in aging.
Reference Key
openalex_W7201995512 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Jennifer T May, Hanna Smyles, Swann Arp Adams, Matthew Lohman
Journal the gerontologist
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnag189
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnag189
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.