Scholarlink

Background <p>Canada is advancing several reforms to strengthen primary health care. Although lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals experience a higher burden of some health conditions, they remain largely absent from these reforms, partly because of limited data. We assessed differences in primary care utilization between LGB and heterosexual individuals to address this gap.</p> Methods <p>We used data from 91,172 heterosexual and 2,550 LGB participants in the 2015–2016 Canadian Community Health Survey. Guided by Andersen’s Behavioural Model of Health Services Use, we examined the association between primary care physician (PCP) consultation rates and our primary variables of interest: sex and sexuality. Estimates for heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay and bisexual men (GBM), and lesbian and bisexual women (LBW) were obtained separately. Models were adjusted for additional covariates (predisposing, enabling, and need-based) identified in Andersen’s framework. Poisson regression was used for the main analysis, and results were compared with estimates from double-selection lasso models.</p> Results <p>GBM and LBW had higher PCP consultation rates over a 12-month period compared with heterosexual men. For every 100 PCP consultations among heterosexual men, there were an estimated 129 consultations (95% CI 112 to 148) among GBM and 123 consultations (95% CI 110 to 139) among LBW. In contrast, consultation rates for GBM and LBW were comparable with heterosexual women.</p> Conclusion <p>Even after adjusting for several covariates, GBM and LBW had higher PCP consultation rates than heterosexual men. These findings suggest that PCP engagement among LGB adults differs from that of heterosexual men. The comparability with heterosexual women requires further investigation. More comprehensive data are needed to verify and clarify these findings to support equitable primary care planning.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Evaluating primary health care utilization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in Canada with a view to inform more equitable health measures

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年3月9日

查看全文
  • Ivan Marbaniang,
  • Erica E.M. Moodie,
  • Eric Latimer,
  • Joseph Cox

摘要

Background

Canada is advancing several reforms to strengthen primary health care. Although lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals experience a higher burden of some health conditions, they remain largely absent from these reforms, partly because of limited data. We assessed differences in primary care utilization between LGB and heterosexual individuals to address this gap.

Methods

We used data from 91,172 heterosexual and 2,550 LGB participants in the 2015–2016 Canadian Community Health Survey. Guided by Andersen’s Behavioural Model of Health Services Use, we examined the association between primary care physician (PCP) consultation rates and our primary variables of interest: sex and sexuality. Estimates for heterosexual men, heterosexual women, gay and bisexual men (GBM), and lesbian and bisexual women (LBW) were obtained separately. Models were adjusted for additional covariates (predisposing, enabling, and need-based) identified in Andersen’s framework. Poisson regression was used for the main analysis, and results were compared with estimates from double-selection lasso models.

Results

GBM and LBW had higher PCP consultation rates over a 12-month period compared with heterosexual men. For every 100 PCP consultations among heterosexual men, there were an estimated 129 consultations (95% CI 112 to 148) among GBM and 123 consultations (95% CI 110 to 139) among LBW. In contrast, consultation rates for GBM and LBW were comparable with heterosexual women.

Conclusion

Even after adjusting for several covariates, GBM and LBW had higher PCP consultation rates than heterosexual men. These findings suggest that PCP engagement among LGB adults differs from that of heterosexual men. The comparability with heterosexual women requires further investigation. More comprehensive data are needed to verify and clarify these findings to support equitable primary care planning.