LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) older adults are more likely than their heterosexual peers to age with limited support in stigmatizing environments often poorly served by traditional social services challenging their preparedness for end of life. Fourteen focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted in five Canadian cities with gay/bisexual men (5 groups; 40 participants), lesbian/bisexual women (5 groups; 29 participants), and transgender persons (3 interviews, 4 groups; 24 participants). Four superordinate themes were identified: (a) motivators and obstacles, (b) relationship concerns, (c) dynamics of LGBT culture and lives, and (d) institutional concerns. Several pressing issues emerged including depression and isolation (more common among gay and bisexual men), financial/class issues (lesbian and bisexual women), and uncomfortable interactions with health-care providers (transgender participants). These findings highlight the challenges and complexities in end-of-life preparation within LGBT communities.

BackgroundHistorically, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) health research has focused heavily on the risks for poor health outcomes, obscuring the ways in which LGBTQ populations maintain and improve their health across the life course. In this paper we argue that informing culturally competent health policy and systems requires shifting the LGBTQ health research evidence base away from deficit-focused approaches toward strengths-based approaches to understanding and measuring LGBTQ health.MethodsWe recently conducted a scoping review with the aim of exploring strengths-based approaches to LGBTQ health research. Our team found that the concept of resilience emerged as a key conceptual framework. This paper discusses a subset of our scoping review findings on the utility of resilience as a conceptual framework in understanding and measuring LGBTQ health.ResultsThe findings of our scoping review suggest that the ways in which resilience is defined and measured in relation to LGBTQ populations remains contested. Given that LGBTQ populations have unique lived experiences of adversity and discrimination, and may also have unique factors that contribute to their resilience, the utility of heteronormative and cis-normative models of resilience is questionable. Our findings suggest that there is a need to consider further exploration and development of LGBTQ-specific models and measures of resilience that take into account structural, social, and individual determinants of health and incorporate an intersectional lens.ConclusionsWhile we fully acknowledge that the resilience of LGBTQ populations is central to advancing LGBTQ health, there remains much work to be done before the concept of resilience can be truly useful in measuring LGBTQ health.

Attention to the concepts of ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ is increasingly being recognized as contributing to better science through an augmented understanding of how these factors impact on health inequities and related health outcomes. However, the ongoing lack of conceptual clarity in how sex and gender constructs are used in both the design and reporting of health research studies remains problematic. Conceptual clarity among members of the health research community is central to ensuring the appropriate use of these concepts in a manner that can advance our understanding of the sex- and gender-based health implications of our research findings. During the past twenty-five years much progress has been made in reducing both sex and gender disparities in clinical research and, to a significant albeit lesser extent, in basic science research. Why, then, does there remain a lack of uptake of sex- and gender-specific reporting of health research findings in many health research journals? This question, we argue, has significant health equity implications across all pillars of health research, from biomedical and clinical research, through to health systems and population health.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12939-015-0144-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Despite advances in HIV treatment and care, the current care landscape is inadequate to meet women's comprehensive care needs. A women-centered approach to HIV care, as envisioned by women living with HIV, is central to guiding policy and practice to improve care and outcomes for women living with HIV in Canada.