Comparing access to sexual and reproductive health services among sexual minority youths and their peers: findings from a national survey in China

Abstract

Background Little is known about the access to measures of sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services among sexual minority communities in China, where sexuality-related stigma and discrimination remains high. The aim of this study is to investigate access to measures of SRH services among Chinese sexual minority youths (SMY) aged 17 to 24 years old. Methods This cross-sectional study utilizes data on 54,580 youths from the 2019–2020 National College Student Survey on Sexual and Reproductive Health, conducted across 31 provinces in mainland China. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was utilized to assess the access to SRH services among Chinese youth with different self-reported sexual orientation. Results The majority of respondents identified as heterosexual (77.6%). The remaining respondents identified as bisexual (9.0%), lesbian or gay (2.8%), others (3.02%), or unknown (7.51%). Gay men reported greater access to free contraceptives at health centers (OR 1.62, 95% CI: 1.32–1.99) and were more likely to have receive medical treatment for sexual and reproductive issues (OR 1.83, 95% CI: 1.26–2.63) compared to heterosexual men. Gay and bisexual men were also more likely to use condom at first sexual intercourse compared to heterosexual men (gay men: OR 1.38, 95% CI: 1.13–1.68; bisexual men: OR 1.33, 95% CI: 1.03–1.71). However, the associations were reversed among women (lesbians: OR 0.05, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.08; bisexuals: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65 to 0.86). Conclusions Although SMY reported higher utilization of SRH services compared to their heterosexual counterparts, access to SRH services remains low among Chinese youths. Greater focus should be placed on improving access to SMY-friendly SRH services among Chinese youths.

Sexual and Gender Minorities Inclusion and Uptake of Sexual and Reproductive Health Services: A Scoping Review of Literature

“…This review found an overall low uptake of SRH services in different countries, especially in low- and middle-income countries such as China (Liang et al, 2022), Uganda (Ssekamatte et al, 2020), Turkey (Coşar, 2020), and South Africa (Müller et al, 2018). It also revealed that SGM people were frequently victims of stigma, prejudice, and marginalization, for example, in South Africa, despite the Constitution’s strong emphasis on equality (Müller et al, 2018).…”

“…The cost of services in Africa was not cited more often as a barrier because SRH services are usually donor-funded by different organizations such as The Global Fund, UNAIDS, and others; hence, SGM can access services for free (Narasimhan et al, 2020). This review found an overall low uptake of SRH services in different countries, especially in low-and middle-income countries such as China (Liang et al, 2022), Uganda (Ssekamatte et al, 2020), Turkey (Cos xar, 2020), and South Africa (Mu¨ller et al, 2018). It also revealed that SGM people were frequently victims of stigma, prejudice, and marginalization, for example, in South Africa, despite the Constitution's strong emphasis on equality (Mu¨ller et al, 2018).…”