ArticleLGBT health2017
Measuring the Influence of Legally Recognized Partnerships on the Health and Well-Being of Same-Sex Couples: Utility of the California Health Interview Survey.
Article in LGBT health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Beyond the bench: LGBTQ+ health equity after India's "no same-sex marriage" verdict.The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2024Review
- Outpatient Primary Care Practitioner Access: Gender-Based Preferences.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- Perceived psychosocial impacts of legalized same-sex marriage: A scoping review of sexual minority adults' experiences.PloS one · 2021Article
- Does Sexual Orientation Complicate the Relationship Between Marital Status and Gender With Self-rated Health and Cardiovascular Disease?Demography · 2020Article
- Prostate cancer in sexual minorities and the influence of HIV status.Nature reviews. Urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study explored the utility of the California Health Interview Survey (CHIS) to compare health-related outcomes among gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals who reported being in a legally recognized partnership.
methodsWe regressed sexual identity and marriage/legally recognized partnership status on seven different outcomes related to health insurance coverage, medical services access and use, and general health and well-being using CHIS data collected between 2009 and 2013.
resultsThere were 1432 respondents who identified as gay, lesbian, or homosexual, and 67,746 who identified as heterosexual. The percentage of participants who reported being married/legally partnered was 54.06% for heterosexual women, 52.93% for heterosexual men, 38.83% for lesbians, and 23.56% for gay men. Legally partnered/married gay and lesbian respondents were more likely to have health insurance and use healthcare than their counterparts not in such partnerships; few trends were statistically significant. Gay men in legally recognized partnerships were more likely than their heterosexual counterparts to report continuous health insurance coverage, a usual medical care source, and at least one provider visit within the past 12 months. We found statistically significant poorer health status outcomes among lesbians in legally recognized partnerships compared to married heterosexual women.
conclusionsLesbians in legally recognized partnerships did not fare as well as married heterosexual women. Gay men in legally recognized partnerships fared better than married heterosexual men on some measures. CHIS questionnaire structures limited our sample and analyses. We recommend that CHIS and other researchers ask partnered status-, marriage-, and sexual identity-related questions en bloc to ensure more robust representation, analyses, recommendations, and policy resolutions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.