ArticleBMC public health2026
A multilevel analysis of LGBT-relevant laws and sexual and gender minority mental health: evidence for the protective role of inclusive policies.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals experience elevated rates of depression and anxiety, largely attributed to chronic exposure to stigma, discrimination, and social exclusion. Less is known about whether state-level policy climates may buffer the mental health impacts of stress among SGM populations.
methodsWe used data from the All of Us Research Program (2020–2022) to examine whether state-level LGBTQ policy climates; measured using the Movement Advancement Project (MAP) Total Tally Score (range: –18.5 to 38.5), moderated associations between general perceived stress (PSS-10) and symptoms of depression and anxiety. Multilevel modeling assessed within- and between-state associations and cross-level interactions between policy climate and stress. Subgroup analyses tested whether moderation effects varied across demographic groups (e.g., marital status, gender identity). Final samples included N = 6,430 (depression) and N = 6,392 (anxiety).
resultsA more inclusive state LGBTQ policy climate significantly moderated the association between perceived stress and mental health symptoms, reflecting a weaker stress–depression association (β = –.023, SE = .010, p = .020) and a weaker stress–anxiety association (β = –.032, SE = .009, p < .001). Moderation was stronger for divorced SGM individuals compared with married individuals (β = –.091, SE = .033, p = .006).
conclusionState-level LGBTQ policy climates were statistically associated with variation in the strength of stress–mental health relationships among SGM adults. These findings highlight the relevance of structural environments for SGM mental health. Future longitudinal research should evaluate how changes in policy climates shape stress processes and mental health trajectories over time.
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.