https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0444-5915
Figures
Abstract
Purpose
Sexual and gender minority and racialized populations experienced heightened vulnerability during the Covid-19 pandemic. Marginalization due to structural homophobia, transphobia and racism, and resulting adverse social determinants of health that contribute to health disparities among these populations, were exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic and public health measures to control it. We developed and tested a tailored online intervention (#SafeHandsSafeHearts) to support racialized lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other persons outside of heteronormative and cisgender identities (LGBTQ+) in Toronto, Canada during the pandemic.
Methods
We used a quasi-experimental pre-test post-test design to evaluate the effectiveness of a 3-session, peer-delivered eHealth intervention in reducing psychological distress and increasing Covid-19 knowledge and protective behaviors. Individuals ≥18-years-old, resident in Toronto, and self-identified as sexual or gender minority were recruited online. Depressive and anxiety symptoms, and Covid-19 knowledge and protective behaviors were assessed at baseline, 2-weeks postintervention, and 2-months follow-up. We used generalized estimating equations and zero-truncated Poisson models to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention on the four primary outcomes.
Results
From March to November 2021, 202 participants (median age, 27 years [Interquartile range: 23–32]) were enrolled in #SafeHandsSafeHearts. Over half (54.5%, n = 110) identified as cisgender lesbian or bisexual women or women who have sex with women, 26.2% (n = 53) cisgender gay or bisexual men or men who have sex with men, and 19.3% (n = 39) transgender or nonbinary individuals. The majority (75.7%, n = 143) were Black and other racialized individuals. The intervention led to statistically significant reductions in the prevalence of clinically significant depressive (25.4% reduction, p < .01) and anxiety symptoms (16.6% reduction, p < .05), and increases in Covid-19 protective behaviors (4.9% increase, p < .05), from baseline to postintervention.
Conclusion
We demonstrated the effectiveness of a brief, peer-delivered eHealth intervention for racialized LGBTQ+ communities in reducing psychological distress and increasing protective behaviors amid the Covid-19 pandemic. Implementation through community-based organizations by trained peer counselors supports feasibility, acceptability, and the importance of engaging racialized LGBTQ+ communities in pandemic response preparedness. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04870723.
Citation: Newman PA, Chakrapani V, Massaquoi N, Williams CC, Tharao W, Tepjan S, et al. (2024) Effectiveness of an eHealth intervention for reducing psychological distress and increasing COVID-19 knowledge and protective behaviors among racialized sexual and gender minority adults: A quasi-experimental study (#SafeHandsSafeHearts). PLoS ONE 19(5): e0280710. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280710
Editor: Cho Lee Wong, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, HONG KONG
Received: January 11, 2023; Accepted: January 23, 2024; Published: May 3, 2024
Copyright: © 2024 Newman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The dataset file is available from the Figshare database: 10.6084/m9.figshare.23813799.
Funding: This study was supported by the International Development Research Centre (109555) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (895-2019-1020). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: PAN reports serving as an Academic Editor for PLOS ONE. All other authors reported no conflicts of interest. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.
Introduction
Marginalization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and other persons (LGBTQ+) outside of heteronormative and cisgender identities, and racialized people, exacerbates vulnerability to SARS-CoV2 transmission and serious Covid-19 outcomes. Marginalization refers to the processes through which certain populations are systematically excluded or relegated to the periphery of social, economic, and political participation and power [1, 2], reflected in differential access to and inequity in employment, education, housing, healthcare [1] and health information [3]. Adverse social determinants of health (SDOH) due to marginalization, both preceding and during the Covid-19 pandemic, contribute to excess risk among LGBTQ+ [4–7], Black [8] and other racialized populations [9, 10], and those with intersectional marginalized identities [6, 11]. In Canada, LGBTQ+ people are more likely to experience precarious employment and financial insecurity [12, 13], unstable housing [13], and lack of availability of competent healthcare [14] compared to cisgender heterosexuals—even more so among racialized LGBTQ+ populations and women [15]. These adverse SDOH increase risks for Covid-19 transmission, reduce access to care, and constrain the ability to adhere to public health-recommended nonpharmaceutical interventions, such as physical distancing, working from home, and Covid-19 testing.
The pervasive health and mental disparities resulting from marginalization of LGBTQ+ and racialized LGBTQ+ people that preceded Covid-19 also exacerbate vulnerability in the pandemic. Significantly higher prevalences of cancer, chronic kidney disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart conditions, and type II diabetes mellitus among sexual minorities, and more so racialized sexual minorities, than among heterosexuals increase risks for more severe Covid-19 illness [11]. Moreover, lower levels of Covid-19 knowledge reported among Black communities than other groups [16, 17], a consequence of marginalization [3], increase pandemic-related risks.
Multiple pathways through which marginalization increases mental health risks among LGBTQ+ individuals include constrained access to financial and social resources, absence of LGBTQ+-competent healthcare, and sexual minority stress [18, 19]. Sexual minority stress is a unique form of stress experienced by LGBTQ+ individuals, in addition to general life stressors, owing to their sexual orientation in the absence of protective social policies and laws [18–20]. Compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals, gender and sexual minority individuals are disproportionately exposed to violence, harassment, discrimination, and social exclusion from families, peers, and communities, which contribute to sexual minority stress and disproportionate mental health problems, including depression and anxiety [18, 19, 21].
Thus, while the Covid-19 pandemic created stress and mental health challenges for much of the world’s population [22], ongoing marginalization and resulting mental health disparities among LGBTQ+ and racialized people are likely to exacerbate the trauma and social isolation of the pandemic [6, 23–25]. Evidence from Canada [26–28] and the U.S. [11, 29] indicates disproportionately higher rates of depression, anxiety, and loneliness among LGBTQ+ people compared to cisgender heterosexual individuals during the pandemic. Yet, despite documented inequities in SDOH, and resulting health and mental health disparities, which combine to increase pandemic-related risks among LGBTQ+ and racialized populations, we are aware of no tailored, evidence-informed interventions to reduce the burden of Covid-19 among these communities.
We developed and tested #SafeHandsSafeHearts, a peer-delivered eHealth intervention, with the aim of providing psychosocial and behavioral support and education to racialized LGBTQ+ individuals during the Covid-19 pandemic. The primary aims of the study were to test the effects of #SafeHandsSafeHearts on reducing clinically relevant depression symptoms and anxiety symptoms, and increasing Covid-19 knowledge and protective behaviors that mitigate the transmission of infection [30]. Our broader objective was to advance pandemic responses designed for racialized and LGBTQ+ populations.
Materials and methods
All study procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of Toronto (protocol no. 39769) and conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained online from all participants by clicking on “Accept” at the end of the online consent form before data collection took place. In case of any adverse events, responses followed the protocol of our lead community health center partner, with licensed, culturally competent medical and counseling professionals available in the event of participant distress or other emergency situations. The clinical trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04870723). The study protocol has been published elsewhere [31]. Recruitment of participants for baseline, postintervention, and 2-month follow-up assessments lasted from March 1, 2021 to May 15, 2022. The study was registered prospectively as one site of an international randomized clinical trial with a crossover design; however, due to protracted delays in ethics approvals from the two international sites amid a public health emergency, we implemented the approved study at the Toronto site using a quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design. All enrollment criteria remained the same, and the intervention and assessments were conducted according to the registered protocol. The authors confirm that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered. The supporting CONSORT checklist is available as supporting information; see S1 Checklist.
Study design and setting
A quasi-experimental, single group pretest-posttest design was used to assess the effectiveness of the #SafeHandsSafeHearts eHealth intervention. We used a single group design, rather than a randomized clinical trial (RCT) with a control or waitlist group, due to practical and ethical considerations. For one, we followed a World Health Organization-recommended approach [32] which included community engagement in intervention development, co-governance, and capacity-building of community-based organizations (CBOs). Our primary CBO partner, a community health center, expressed a strong desire to provide the intervention to all individuals who enrolled in the study amid ongoing pandemic-related lockdowns in the study site. Secondly, given the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the physical and mental health of our study population—LGBTQ+ and racialized people [6, 23, 24, 29]—we decided against a waitlist group, which would delay access to the intervention during a public health emergency.
The study was wholly developed and conducted online due to rolling lockdowns in Toronto and the contiguous urban region from March 2020 to June 2021 [33]. The Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA; pop. estimate, 7.3 million) is comprised of the largest and most ethnoracially diverse cities by population in Ontario, including Toronto, Halton, Peel, York, and Durham.
Sample size
The sample size was calculated based on power (80%) to detect significant differences (alpha = 0.05 for 95% confidence interval, two-tailed test) in 4 primary outcomes: increases in Covid-19 knowledge and Covid-19-protective behavior scores; and decreases in the proportion of participants with pandemic-related depressive and anxiety symptoms. We assumed a small to medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.3) on knowledge and behavior, and 20% reduction in the proportion of participants with depression or anxiety, based on an extensive review of health behavior and stress management interventions [34]. Required sample sizes estimated using Stata-16 and G*Power 3.1 (McNemar’s paired-proportions test) ranged from 90–92 to detect significant differences between pre-intervention and postintervention timepoints [35]. Assuming 10% attrition and adding a design/clustering effect of 1.5, the target sample size was increased to 239.
Procedures
We developed a customized online dashboard and database to support study coordination, including tracking of participant recruitment, screening, enrollment, counselor assignment, and eHealth sessions. Participants were recruited online via listservs and social media accounts of CBOs and health centers serving racialized and LGBTQ+ communities, LGBTQ+ e-groups, and a study website. We distributed e-flyers and messages with a focus on groups and organizations serving racialized LGBTQ+ populations.
Eligibility criteria were (1) age ≥18 years; (2) self-identify as cisgender lesbian or bisexual woman or woman who has sex with women (LBWSW); cisgender gay or bisexual man or man who have sex with men (GBMSM); or transgender or non-binary individuals (TNB); (3) resident in the GTHA for ≥ 6 months; (4) able to understand and willing to provide informed consent; and (5) able to understand English.
Peer counselors who delivered the intervention were MSW student interns in health and mental health specializations and BSW-level counselors from CBOs that provide services to sexual and gender minority populations. All had previous experience working with racialized communities. Most peer counselors identified as racialized, and all were LGBTQ+ or allies. Peer counselors completed a university-accredited online training course in motivational interviewing (MI) before delivering the intervention. Peer counselors also completed a 3-day, manualized online training delivered by health and mental health professionals on the conduct of the intervention, including small-group discussions, role-plays, mock counseling sessions, and feedback, as well as a subsequent booster session. The training covered Covid-19, public health-recommended nonpharmaceutical interventions, pandemic-related distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, social isolation), MI-based counseling, psychoeducation, and research ethics. In addition, two Covid-19 medical updates were provided by medical officers from Toronto Public Health. Throughout the intervention, an experienced, licensed social worker conducted biweekly clinical group supervision including peer counselor self-assessments and supervisor feedback. Peer counselors also completed brief self-assessments online after each session was conducted. MSW student interns were not paid as they were gaining course credit through their university. Community counselors were paid $30 per hour.
Intervention
#SafeHandsSafeHearts builds on evidence-informed interventions that have used MI [36, 37] and psychoeducation [38] to increase health knowledge, health behaviors, and reduce psychological distress [39–41]. As a client-centered, nonjudgmental, and strengths-based approach [42, 43], MI is particularly appropriate for working with individuals from marginalized populations who have historically been subjected to stigma and directed to conform to hetero- and cis-normative and dominant ethnocultural expectations and behaviors [44, 45]. MI shifts the locus of control from the counselor to the client and promotes resilience by strengthening intrinsic motivation for change [45, 46]. Consonant with the tenets of MI, psychoeducation is a strengths-based approach that integrates education and counseling, in which clients are considered partners in treatment [38].
MI has demonstrated effectiveness in health behavior change among sexual minorities, though interventions largely focus on gay White men and HIV risk reduction and substance use behaviors [15, 47, 48]. Overall reviews of the effectiveness of MI have indicated limited research with racialized populations and mixed results [43, 46]; however, one recent review focused on MI-based interventions with racialized populations identified acknowledgement of participants’ culture and cultural tailoring of the intervention, as well as counselors being of similar backgrounds to participants, as hallmarks of success [44]. Informed by elements of effective MI interventions and the importance of cultural tailoring, rather than adapt previous interventions designed for cisgender gay and predominantly White men for implementation with racialized cisgender women and transgender people, we marshalled the multidisciplinary expertise, clinical and research experience, and cultural and sexual/gender diversity of our research team and community partners to design an intervention tailored for racialized sexual and gender minority individuals.
The intervention content was organized into 3 sessions, based on systematic reviews of MI-based interventions for health-related behaviors [41, 46] (see S1 Appendix). The first session focused on building rapport, goal-identification (i.e., participant’s goals for change), and psychoeducation (i.e., selecting 1 or 2 new things to observe/try out and discuss next session), with additional content focused on knowledge about Covid-19 transmission, symptoms, testing, and treatment. Session 2 content focused on understanding and practicing Covid-19 protective behaviors (i.e., improving self-efficacy), risk reduction, psychoeducation, and problem-solving (i.e., reviewing the “new things” experience, reinforcing successes, normalizing setbacks). Session 3 focused on understanding psychosocial issues, promoting awareness of community resources, and improving mental health (i.e., mental health and social support assessment and strengthening, expanding support for change—tools, relationships, services), and maintaining change (i.e., relapse prevention).
The intervention was delivered online (via mobile phone, tablet, laptop, or PC) in 3-weekly 60-minute modules. Counselors were given flexibility to address pressing needs raised by participants at the beginning of each session. A referral list was provided to all counselors, including locally available and free or low-cost concrete services (e.g., food banks, housing), health services, and mental health hotlines, including LGBTQ+- and ethnoracially-competent organizations. Counselors documented referrals made in each session and followed up with participants in subsequent sessions. Participants were provided with a $30 honorarium after each online session, and after postintervention and follow-up survey completion.
Measures
Participants completed surveys at baseline, 2-weeks postintervention after their final eHealth session, and 2-month follow-up.
Primary outcomes.
Depression symptoms in the past 2 weeks were measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) [49]. Anxiety symptoms in the past 2 weeks were measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-2 scale (GAD-2) [50]. Each 2-item scale was scored from 0–3 (range, 0–6), with a score of ≥3 indicative of screening cut-points for clinically significant depression or anxiety [51].
Covid-19 knowledge was assessed using a 7-item index (score range, 2–7) developed by the research team, based on U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) guidelines [52, 53] and published research [54, 55]. Public health-recommended Covid-19 protective behaviors (handwashing, mask-wearing, physical distancing) were assessed using a 9-item index (score range, 1–18) developed by the research team based on WHO and U.S. CDC guidelines [52, 53].
Demographic characteristics and other covariates.
Demographic variables included age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, city of residence, country of birth, education, and employment status. We assessed loneliness/social isolation (UCLA Loneliness Scale) [56]; Covid-19 stress (Covid-19 danger and Covid-19 traumatic stress subscales) [57]; resilience (Resilience to Traumatic Experience scale) [58]; vaccine conspiracy beliefs [59–61]; and Covid-19 vaccination status.
Acceptability of the intervention
In order to maximize the use and efficiency of the research developed and conducted during a real-world public health emergency, we included a brief assessment of the acceptability of the eHealth intervention [62]. This responded to our community partner’s interest in developing their own eHealth programming, and the research team’s plans to conduct an RCT in two additional sites. After each eHealth session, participants were sent an online link to a confidential 4-item evaluation to indicate their satisfaction with the session and session length, the extent to which it was helpful in improving their emotional wellness or mental health and their Covid-19-related knowledge and skills.
Statistical analyses
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize sociodemographic and related characteristics: frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and means and standard deviations for continuous variables. We used population-averaged Poisson models (generalized estimating equations or GEE) [63] to estimate dichotomous outcomes (i.e., depression, anxiety), and zero-truncated Poisson models [64] to estimate count outcomes (i.e., Covid-19 knowledge, Covid-19 protective behaviors). Incidence rate ratios (IRR) were calculated based on pair-wise comparisons, with Bonferroni’s method used for multiplicity testing adjustments, to estimate between group differences on primary outcomes at baseline, postintervention, and 2-month follow-up. Clustering of observations at the participant level were taken into account by specifying the clustering variable (participant ID) in the GEE models and by using robust standard errors in the truncated Poisson models [65]. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis, in that all participants were included irrespective of their session attendance or completion of questionnaires. A complete-case analysis is generally not recommended due to loss of sample size and potential bias in the results [66]. Given the quasi-experimental design of the study and potential confounding effects of certain sociodemographic characteristics on study outcomes, models were adjusted for age [67, 68], race/ethnicity [69], sexual/gender identity [29, 67, 68], education [67] and employment status [70]. Two-sided p-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using Stata/SE 16.1 (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX).
Results
Enrollment and intervention exposure
Among individuals initially screened online (n = 229), 27 (11.8%) were ineligible; of these, n = 18 did not meet residency requirements and n = 9 did not meet sexuality/gender criteria. Among enrolled participants (n = 202), the majority (54.5%; n = 110) completed 3 sessions, 5 (2.5%) completed 2 sessions, 8 (4.0%) 1 session, and 79 (39.1%) no sessions. Fifty-four percent (n = 109) completed the postintervention survey, and 48% (n = 96) completed the follow-up survey (see Fig 1).
GTHA, Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area; LGBTQ+, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other persons outside of heteronormative and cisgender identities.
Participant characteristics
In total, 202 participants (median age, 27 years [IQR: 23–32]) were enrolled in the #SafeHandsSafeHearts trial. The majority (54%, n = 110) identified as cisgender LBWSW, nearly one-fifth (19.3%, n = 39) TNB, and one-quarter (26.2%, n = 53) cisgender GBMSM. Nearly one-third of participants (30.7%, n = 62) identified as African/Caribbean/Black, 30.2% (n = 61) South/East/Southeast Asian, 24.3% (n = 49) White, 8.9% (n = 18) Latinx/Hispanic, and 5.9% (n = 12) multiracial. Over two-thirds (67.3%, n = 136) had college-degree education and one-half (50.0%, n = 101) were unemployed. Table 1 shows participant demographic characteristics.
Psychological distress, Covid-19 knowledge and protective behaviors
The baseline prevalence of depressive symptoms was 53.6% (95% CI 48.0%–59.3%), and of anxiety symptoms was 63.5% (95% CI 57.5%–69.5%). The mean score on Covid-19 knowledge at baseline was 6.73 (95% CI 6.66–6.80) and on protective behaviors was 14.75 (95% CI 14.27–15.23) (see Table 2).
Effect of the intervention on depression
The intervention led to statistically significant reductions in the prevalence of depressive symptoms by one-fourth (25.4%) from baseline to postintervention (IRR = 0.746; 95% CI 0.612–0.911, p < .01) (Table 2). Those who were employed reported significantly lower risk (IRR = 0.74; 95% CI .60–.90, p < .05) of depressive symptoms (Table 3). Higher scores on Covid-19 stress (IRR = 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13–1.39, p < .001) and loneliness (IRR = 1.24; 95% CI 1.16–1.32, p < .001) were associated with significantly greater risks of depressive symptoms (Table 2). Higher scores on resilience to traumatic stress were associated with a small but significantly lower risk of depressive symptoms (IRR = 0.97; 95% CI .94–.99, p < .001). Overall reduction in the prevalence of depression from baseline to 2-month follow-up was not statistically significant, nor was the difference between postintervention and follow-up prevalence of depressive symptoms statistically significant, suggesting that the effect of the intervention on depression was not retained.
Effect of the intervention on anxiety
The intervention led to statistically significant reductions in anxiety symptoms, with the prevalence reduced by 16.6% from baseline to postintervention (IRR = 0.834; 95% CI 0.710–0.970, p < .05) (Table 2). The prevalence of anxiety symptoms at 2-month follow-up was also significantly different from baseline (23.7% reduction: IRR = 0.763; 95% CI 0.615–0.945, p < .05), with no significant difference from postintervention to follow-up (IRR = 0.915; 95% CI 0.732–1.144, p = .65); this suggests that the effect of the intervention on reducing anxiety was retained over time (Table 2). Those who were employed had a significantly lower risk (IRR = 0.84; 95% CI, .70–.99, p < .05) of anxiety symptoms (Table 3). Cisgender sexual minority women had a significantly higher risk (IRR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.01–1.66, p < .05) of anxiety symptoms compared to cisgender sexual minority men. Higher scores on Covid-19 stress (IRR = 1.29; 95% CI 1.16–1.43, p < .001) and higher scores on loneliness (IRR = 1.14; 95% CI 1.08–1.21, p < .001) were each associated with significantly greater risk of anxiety symptoms.
Effect of the intervention on Covid-19 knowledge
There was no statistically significant increase in Covid-19 knowledge scores over time (Table 2). Higher scores on vaccine conspiracy beliefs (IRR = 0.994; 95% CI, 0.990–0.998, p < .05) were inversely associated with Covid-19 knowledge scores over time (Table 4). Higher Covid-19 stress scores were positively associated with Covid-19 knowledge (IRR = 1.02; 95% CI, 1.005–1.04, p < .05) over time.
Effect of the intervention on Covid-19 protective behaviors
The intervention led to a statistically significant increase in Covid-19 protective behavior scores over time, from baseline to postintervention (4.9% increase: IRR = 1.049; 95% CI 1.002–1.099, p < .05), and from baseline to 2-month follow-up (8.6% increase: IRR = 1.086; 95% CI 1.036–1.138, p < .001) (Table 2). There was no significant change in Covid-19 protective behavior scores from postintervention to 2-month follow-up (IRR = 1.035; 95% CI 0.994–1.078, p = .06), suggesting that the effect of the intervention was retained. Those with higher Covid-19 knowledge scores showed small but statistically significant differences in higher scores on Covid-19 protective behaviors (IRR = 1.06; 95% CI 1.03–1.10, p < .001) over time (Table 4). Those who reported Covid-19 vaccination (one or two doses) showed small but statistically significant differences in lower scores on Covid-19 protective behaviors (IRR = 0.93; 95% CI 0.89–0.99, p < .05) over time.
Acceptability of the intervention
Evaluation forms were submitted online by 72% of those who engaged in intervention counselling sessions. Overall, participants indicated feeling “very satisfied” with the session in 84% (141/168) of sessions evaluated and “very satisfied” with the duration of the session in 79% (133/168) of sessions evaluated. In 86% (145/168) of sessions evaluated, participants indicated they were “very helpful” in “improving your emotional wellness or mental health.”
Discussion
This study reports the results of a novel community-based, peer-delivered eHealth intervention (#SafeHandsSafeHearts), which is to our knowledge the first intervention to demonstrate effectiveness in reducing pandemic-related psychological distress and increasing Covid-19 protective behaviors among LGBTQ+ people. Despite the largescale failure of public health systems to systematically report sexual orientation and gender identity information in relation to Covid-19 [71], increasing evidence indicates the disproportionate impact of Covid-19 and pandemic-related public health responses on health and mental health outcomes among LGBTQ+ people in Canada [26], the US [72, 73], and Western Europe [74].
Importantly, even among research and interventions designed to support broader LGBTQ+ health, there is substantially lesser focus on individuals who occupy intersectional marginalized identities based on sexual or gender minority and racialized status, such as Black, Latinx, Asian, and other racialized LGBTQ+ individuals [15, 24, 71]. Our successful enrollment of a sample of LGBTQ+ people, a majority of whom were racialized, is both notable and apropos of the elevated risk of Covid-19 infection and more severe outcomes among these populations [11]. The successful implementation of #SafeHandsSafeHearts during a global public health emergency, with extensive rolling lockdowns and stay-at-home orders in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area [33], further supports the feasibility and ecological validity of the intervention.
As hypothesized, the intervention led to a statistically significant reduction in the prevalence of symptoms indicative of clinically significant depression and anxiety from baseline to postintervention. The high baseline prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms itself exemplifies the extreme pandemic-related distress among racialized LGBTQ+ individuals, many of whom were enrolled before Covid-19 vaccination was available to them beginning in June 2021 [75].
The significant effects of the intervention in reducing the prevalence of depression and anxiety support the success of the MI-based and psychoeducational approach, as well as the eHealth modality. The decidedly nonjudgmental stance of MI may be especially appropriate in working with sexual and gender minority and racialized communities, more so amid a pandemic. These communities may understandably experience ambivalence or alienation in the ongoing context of structural racism [76, 77], transphobia and homophobia [71], and historically justified medical mistrust [78, 79], in response to public health interventions that were not designed with community input nor with their communities in mind [78, 80]. The use of eHealth, as well as telehealth and other online modalities with low barriers to access, also may be particularly appropriate for LGBTQ+, racialized, and other marginalized populations during a pandemic; closures of familiar community-based services may reduce access to culturally competent health and mental health services despite their heightened vulnerability [74]. Nevertheless, even with decreases in depressive symptomology 2-weeks post-intervention, the failure to retain this effect at 2-month follow-up suggests that future trials should assess the intervention with more than 3 sessions, and/or the use of eHealth booster sessions [81] to determine if any of these may support retention of reductions in depression over time. Although challenges have been reported for brief MI-based interventions in their effects waning over time [46], in the present study the retention of intervention effects in reducing anxiety at 2-months post-intervention during an ongoing pandemic suggests the potential for a more sustained impact on reducing depression.
We also identified statistically significant associations between secondary measures of loneliness and Covid-19 stress, respectively, and depression and anxiety outcomes. The intervention may have helped to abate these risk factors, potentially reflecting benefits of a peer-based approach in providing psychosocial support for marginalized communities in the context of systemic stigma and discrimination [82]. LGBTQ+ individuals may be particularly vulnerable to loneliness and psychological distress during prolonged lockdowns as a result of different family configurations than heterosexual individuals on whom public health responses are normed, and the closure of community spaces that provide LGBTQ+-affirmative and culturally competent support [83, 84].
Notably, employment exerted significant protective effects against both depression and anxiety; this corroborates pathways through which economic marginalization contributes to vulnerability in a pandemic [27, 71]. The extensive job loss reported among our sample is substantiated by Toronto government data indicating 50% higher rates of pandemic-related unemployment among Black and Asian versus White and other ethnoracial groups [85], as well as studies demonstrating vulnerability and stress associated with pandemic-related job loss among LGBTQ+ individuals in Canada [27] and the U.S. [29, 71]. Structural interventions to promote job security and retention among racialized people and sexual and gender minorities, communities disproportionately represented in service industries [6], such as provision of paid sick leave [86] and broader employment antidiscrimination measures, may exert substantial salubrious effects on mental health in a public health emergency.
Our findings also identify relatively high adherence to public health-recommended protective behaviors at baseline, including physical distancing and mask-wearing, as well as handwashing. The intervention had a small but sustained positive effect on protective behaviors, with increases retained at 2-month follow-up. The uniformly high Covid-19 knowledge demonstrated at baseline may be attributable to daily public health messaging about Covid-19 delivered through multiple channels in the Toronto area; this may have impeded our ability to detect improvements in Covid-19 knowledge over time.
Strengths and limitations
Study results should be understood in the context of limitations. First, the quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design precludes the ability to determine causal associations; however, the temporality of the intervention, and use of pretest, posttest, and follow-up surveys, support the impact of the intervention on the outcomes assessed and account for possible decay in intervention effects over time [87]. Nevertheless, the 2-month follow-up time frame limits our ability to assess longer term intervention effects. Second, self-reporting of depression and anxiety symptoms, and use of a brief assessment instrument, might result in bias; however, we implemented widely used screening tools with established validity and reliability [51]. Third, while over 60% of individuals who screened into the study completed 1 or more—89% of these, all 3—counseling sessions, session nonattendance may reflect the challenges of participation and retention during a pandemic. We anticipated constraints to engaging in online counseling owing to lack of privacy, and not having a personal mobile device or broadband internet access. To that end, we made arrangements with local CBOs to provide free PC/internet access on site; however, ongoing lockdowns and concerns about infection may have precluded their utilization. The lack of pilot testing also limited our ability to assess the feasibility of the intervention and enact possible changes to reduce barriers to participation; however, we decided to forego pilot testing to avoid further delays in study implementation among vulnerable populations during a public health emergency. Nevertheless, even with the inclusion of participants who did not attend one or more sessions in our analyses, we identified intervention effectiveness on three of four primary outcomes.
Fourth, lack of retention of significant reductions in depression, similarly identified in other brief MI-based interventions [46], suggests the need to test #SafeHandsSafeHearts with additional eHealth sessions over a longer duration. Fifth, we solicited and received feedback on the intervention from professionals in social work, psychology, and medicine, however the intervention was not formally reviewed by an external professional expert panel. Finally, the study was conducted in one Canadian metropolitan area, and results may not be generalizable to all racialized LGBTQ+ people in Canada or elsewhere. However, we designed eligibility criteria to include a broad range of self-identifications among racialized sexual and gender minorities (i.e., not only self-identified gay or lesbian or trans individuals) and we were successful in recruitment of a predominantly racialized LGBTQ+ sample during a pandemic.
Implications for research and practice
The present results suggest that future research should be conducted with larger sample sizes of racialized sexual and gender minority populations in other locales, and using randomized designs, to further validate the effectiveness of the #SafeHandsSafeHearts intervention. Our results also suggest augmenting the 3-session eHealth intervention with additional sessions, possibly with less frequency (every two weeks rather than weekly), and conducting a postintervention survey after a longer (i.e., 6-month) interval to evaluate effectiveness in sustaining reductions in psychological distress over time. As the intervention was developed and culturally tailored for racialized and LGBTQ+ communities in Toronto, Canada, and delivered by trained peers from within these communities and allies, pilot testing and community-engaged approaches in partnership with culturally appropriate organizations should be used to adapt and deliver the intervention for other communities and contexts [44].
In Canada as in other jurisdictions, LGBTQ+ communities, and more so ethnic/racial minority LGBTQ+ people, are likely to experience heightened vulnerability in future pandemics and emergency situations to the extent public health responses continue to be reflexively designed and normed on cisgender and heterosexual populations [31, 88, 89]. Implicit assumptions about living arrangements with two-parent families or cohabitating married couples, and the presumed availability of supportive family networks, may further disenfranchise LGBTQ+ individuals, whose lives may not correspond to these heteronormative expectations [6, 31]. In this context, public health measures to control the pandemic, such as protracted stay-at-home mandates, closures of local community organizations and healthcare services, and increased police surveillance, may exert greater psychosocial and financial stress on LGBTQ+ than on cisgender heterosexual individuals [6, 31]. The disparate impacts of Covid-19 and future pandemics on LGBTQ+ communities are also likely to be exacerbated in jurisdictions without LGBTQ+ human rights protections, particularly in contexts of criminalization [88, 90], and absent legal recognition of same-sex marriage [91].
Overall, the present study suggests the core importance of meaningful engagement of ethnoracially diverse LGBTQ+ and other marginalized communities and local CBOs in future research, intervention design and delivery [92], and the critical need for data inclusive of sexual and gender minorities [89], to better prepare for future health crises. Specifically, evidence from this study supports the need for multicomponent culturally tailored pandemic preparedness and interventions: LGBTQ+ affirmative eHealth and telehealth interventions to support mental health, coping, and sexual health [31, 80]; programs and policies to promote employment access and security [15, 70, 93]; ensuring access to LGBTQ+ competent and equitable healthcare [14, 70, 90]; and broader structural interventions to implement and enforce LGBTQ+ human rights protections and to combat intersectional stigma, discrimination, and violence against ethnoracially diverse sexual and gender minorities [14, 15, 31, 88, 90, 93].
Conclusion
We demonstrated the preliminary effectiveness of an innovative, brief eHealth intervention in reducing psychological distress and increasing protective behaviors among LGBTQ+, predominantly racialized, individuals during the Covid-19 pandemic. Overall, this study affirms the critical importance of meaningful engagement of racialized LGBTQ+ communities in pandemic preparedness, and public health intervention design and implementation.
Supporting information
S1 Checklist. CONSORT 2010 checklist of information to include when reporting a randomised trial.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280710.s001
(DOC)
S1 Appendix. #SafeHandsSafeHearts intervention.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280710.s002
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge our lead community partner, Women’s Health in Women’s Hands Community Health Centre, for their collaboration in implementing the study in a pandemic. We especially thank our dedicated online peer counsellors and study staff: Chantel Aboagye-Mensah, Celeste Bilbao, Rachel Cheung, Denise Frans, Manvinder Gill, Rae Paul, Ali Pearson, Monte-Angel Richardson, Jora Shacter, Jena Taylor-Hunter, Monica Vu, Alisha Williams, and Alexandra Wright. Thanks to Eileen McKee, Assistant Dean of Field Education, University of Toronto Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, for facilitating our MSW student internships.
References
- 1. Baah FO, Teitelman AM, Riegel B. Marginalization: Conceptualizing patient vulnerabilities in the framework of social determinants of health-An integrative review. Nurs Inq. 2019; 26(1):e12268. pmid:30488635
- 2. Sharma M. Developing an integrated curriculum on the health of marginalized populations: successes, challenges, and next steps. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2014;25(2):663–9. pmid:24858875
- 3. Nutbeam D, Lloyd JE. Understanding and responding to health literacy as a social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2021;42:159–73. pmid:33035427
- 4. Jaffray B. Experiences of violent victimization and unwanted sexual behaviours among gay, lesbian, bisexual and other sexual minority people, and the transgender population, in Canada, 2018. Statistics Canada; September 9, 2020. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2020001/article/00009-eng.pdf [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 5. Krause K. Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBTQ communities. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2021;27(Suppl 1):S69–71. pmid:33239566
- 6. Salerno JP, Williams ND, Gattamorta KA. LGBTQ populations: Psychologically vulnerable communities in the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Trauma. 2020;12(S1):S239–42. pmid:32551761
- 7. Sanchez TH, Zlotorzynska M, Rai M, Baral SD. Characterizing the impact of COVID-19 on men who have sex with men across the United States in April, 2020. AIDS Behav. 2020;24(7):2024–2032. pmid:32350773
- 8. Yancy CW. COVID-19 and African Americans. JAMA. 2020;323(19):1891–2; pmid:32293639
- 9. Lundberg DJ, Wrigley-Field E, Cho A, Raquib R, Nsoesie EO, Paglino E, et al. COVID-19 mortality by race and ethnicity in US metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, March 2020 to February 2022. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2311098. pmid:37129894
- 10. Wrigley-Field E. US racial inequality may be as deadly as COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2020;117(36):21854–6. pmid:32839337
- 11. Heslin KC, Hall JE. Sexual orientation disparities in risk factors for adverse COVID-19–related outcomes, by race/ethnicity—Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, United States, 2017–2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021;70:149–54. pmid:33539330
- 12.
Egale. National survey results: the Impact of COVID-19 on the 2SLGBTQI community. Egale; April 6, 2020. Available from: https://egale.ca/awareness/covid19-impact-report/ [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 13. Propkopenko E, Kevins C. Vulnerabilities related to COVID-19 among LGBTQ2+ Canadians. Statistics Canada; December 15, 2020. Available from: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/45-28-0001/2020001/article/00075-eng.pdf [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 14. McKenzie C, Mulé NJ, Khan M. Where Is LGBTQ+ in Ontario’s health care policies and programs? Sex Res Social Policy. 2022;19(2):610–21. pmid:33903805
- 15. Higgins R, Hansen B, Jackson BE, Shaw A, Lachowsky NJ. Programs and interventions promoting health equity in LGBTQ2+ populations in Canada through action on social determinants of health. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2021;41(12):431–5. pmid:34910899
- 16. Alsan M, Stantcheva S, Yang D, Cutler D. Disparities in Coronavirus 2019 reported incidence, knowledge, and behavior among US Adults. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(6):e2012403. pmid:32556260
- 17. Worku F, Bennett F, Wheeler S, Siddiqi A, Papadakos J. Exploring the COVID-19 knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) in the Black community: A scoping review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023:1–27. pmid:36757610
- 18. Hatzenbuehler ML. Social factors as determinants of mental health disparities in LGB populations: Implications for public policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev. 2010;4(1):31–62.
- 19. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(5):674–97. pmid:12956539
- 20. Meyer IH, Schwartz S, Frost DM. Social patterning of stress and coping: does disadvantaged social statuses confer more stress and fewer coping resources? Soc Sci Med. 2008;67(3):368–79. pmid:18433961
- 21. Pachankis JE. Uncovering clinical principles and techniques to address minority stress, mental health, and related health risks among gay and bisexual men. Clin Psychol. 2014;21(4):313–30. pmid:25554721
- 22. Galea S, Merchant RM, Lurie N. The mental health consequences of COVID-19 and physical distancing: The need for prevention and early intervention. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(6):817–8. pmid:32275292
- 23. Abramovich A, Pang N, Moss A. Experiences of family violence among 2SLGBTQ+ youth at risk of, and experiencing, homelessness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health. 2022;26(3):265–88.
- 24. Drabble LA., Eliason MJ. Introduction to special issue: Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on LGBTQ+ health and well-being. J Homosex. 2021;68;(4):545–59. pmid:33439789
- 25. Riggle EDB, Drabble LA, Bochicchio LA, Wootton AR, Veldhuis CB, Munroe C, et al. Experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic among African American, Latinx, and White sexual minority women: A descriptive phenomenological study. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2021;8(2):145–58. pmid:34746332
- 26. Jacmin-Park S, Rossi M, Dumont L, Lupien SJ, Juster R-P. Mental health and social support of sexual and gender diverse people from Québec, Canada during the COVID-19 crisis. LGBT Health. 2022;9(3):151–60. pmid:35290754
- 27. Jenkins EK, McAuliffe C, Hirani S, Richardson C, Thomson KC, McGuinness L, et al. A portrait of the early and differential mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Findings from the first wave of a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Prev Med. 2021;145:106333. pmid:33509605
- 28. Slemon A, Richardson C, Goodyear T, Salway T, Gadermann A, Oliffe JL, et al. Widening mental health and substance use inequities among sexual and gender minority populations: Findings from a repeated cross-sectional monitoring survey during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Psychiatry Res. 2022;307:114327. pmid:34923446
- 29. Akré E-R, Anderson A, Stojanovski K, Chung KW, VanKim NA, Chae DH. Depression, anxiety, and alcohol use among LGBTQ+ people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am J Pub Health. 2021;111(9):1610–9. pmid:34410817
- 30. Bottemanne H, Friston KJ. An active inference account of protective behaviours during the COVID-19 pandemic. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci. 2021;21(6):1117–29. pmid:34652601
- 31. Newman PA, Chakrapani V, Williams C, Massaquoi N, Tepjan S, Roungprakhon S, et al. An eHealth intervention for promoting COVID-19 knowledge and protective behaviors and reducing pandemic distress among sexual and gender minorities: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (#SafeHandsSafeHearts). JMIR Res Protoc. 2021;10(12):e34381. pmid:34726610
- 32.
World Health Organization (WHO). Community engagement: A health promotion guide for universal health coverage in the hands of the people. WHO; October 5, 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240010529 [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 33.
Canadian Press. City of Toronto declares end of COVID-19 emergency order. CBC News; May 9, 2022. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-emergency-order-covid-1.6446969 [last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 34. Johnson BT, Scott-Sheldon LA, Carey MP. Meta-synthesis of health behavior change meta-analyses. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(11):2193–8. pmid:20167901
- 35.
Verma PJ, Verma P. Determining sample size and power in research studies: A manual for researchers. Singapore: Springer Nature; 2020.
- 36.
Miller W, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd edition). Guilford Press: New York; 2002.
- 37. Miller WR, Rollnick S. Meeting in the middle: Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:25. pmid:22385872
- 38. Lukens EP, McFarlane WR. Psychoeducation as evidence-based practice: Considerations for practice, research, and policy. Brief Treat Crisis Interv. 2004;4(3):205–225.
- 39. Donker T, Griffiths KM, Cuijpers P, Christensen H. Psychoeducation for depression, anxiety and psychological distress: A meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2009;16(7):79. pmid:20015347
- 40. Frost H, Campbell P, Maxwell M, O‘Carroll RE, Dombrowski SU, Williams B, et al. Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on adult behaviour change in health and social care settings: A systematic review of reviews. PLoS One. 2018;13(10):e0204890. pmid:30335780
- 41. Smedslund G, Berg RC, Hammerstrøm KT, Steiro A, Leiknes KA, Dahl HM, et al. Motivational interviewing for substance abuse. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;2011(5): CD008063. pmid:21563163
- 42. Markland D, Ryan RM, Tobin VJ, Rollnick S. Motivational interviewing and self–determination theory. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2005;24(6):811–31.
- 43. Naar-King S, Parsons J, Johnson A. Motivational interviewing targeting risk reduction for people with HIV: A systematic review. Curr HIV/AIDS Rep. 2012;9(4):335–43. pmid:22890780
- 44. Bahafzallah L, Hayden KA, Raffin Bouchal S, Singh P, King-Shier KM. Motivational interviewing in ethnic populations. J Immigr Minor Health. 2020;22(4):816–51. pmid:31655949
- 45.
Johnson BE, Mimiaga MJ. Motivational interviewing for LGBT patients. In: Eckstrand K, Potter J, (eds): Trauma, resilience, and health promotion in LGBT patients. Springer: Cham; 2017: pp. 203–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54509-7_17
- 46. Lundahl BW, Kunz C, Brownell C, Tollefson D, Burke BL. A meta-analysis of motivational interviewing: Twenty-five years of empirical studies. Res Soc Work Pract. 2010;20(2):137–60.
- 47. Carrico AW, Zepf R, Meanley S, Batchelder A, Stall R. When the party is over: A systematic review of behavioral interventions for substance-using men who have sex with men. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016;73(3):299–306. pmid:27258233
- 48. Berg RC, Ross MW, Tikkanen R. The effectiveness of MI4MSM: How useful is motivational interviewing as an HIV risk prevention program for men who have sex with men? A systematic review. AIDS Educ Prev. 2011;23(6):533–49. pmid:22201237
- 49. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JBW. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2: Validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284–92. pmid:14583691
- 50. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Monahan PO, Löwe B. Anxiety disorders in primary care: Prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection. Ann Intern Med. 2007;146(5):317–25. pmid:17339617
- 51. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Löwe B. The patient health questionnaire somatic, anxiety, and depressive symptom scales: A systematic review. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. 2010;32(4):345–59. pmid:20633738
- 52.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). COVID-19 coronavirus disease: Share facts, not fear. New Mexico Department of Health; March 16, 2020. Available from: https://cv.nmhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/share-facts-about-COVID-19-NMDOH.pdf [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 53.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). How to protect yourself and others. National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), Division of Viral Diseases; August 11, 2022. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 54. Al-Hanawi MK, Angawi K, Alshareef N, Qattan AMN, Helmy HZ, Abudawood Y, et al. Knowledge, attitude and practice toward COVID-19 among the public in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: A cross-sectional study. Front Public Health. 2020;8:217. pmid:32574300
- 55. Azlan AA, Hamzah MR, Sern TJ, Ayub SH, Mohamad E. Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233668. pmid:32437434
- 56. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: Results from two population-based studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655–72. pmid:18504506
- 57. Taylor S, Landry CA, Paluszek MM, Fergus TA, McKay D, Asmundson GJG. Development and initial validation of the COVID Stress Scales. J Anxiety Disord. 2020;72:102232. pmid:32408047
- 58. Johnson DC, Polusny MA, Erbes CR, King D, King L, Litz BT, et al. Development and initial validation of the Response to Stressful Experiences Scale. Mil Med. 2011;176(2):161–169. pmid:21366078
- 59. Allington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, Dhavan N, Rubin J. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2021;51(10):1763–9. pmid:32513320
- 60. Georgiou N, Delfabbro P, Balzan R. COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs. Pers Individ Dif. 2020;166:110201. pmid:32565592
- 61. Shapiro GK, Holding A, Perez S, Amsel R, Rosberger Z. Validation of the vaccine conspiracy beliefs scale. Papillomavirus Res. 2016;2:167–72. pmid:29074176
- 62. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeb JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021;374:n2061. pmid:34593508
- 63.
Twisk JWR. Applied longitudinal data analysis for epidemiology: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 2015.
- 64.
Cameron AC, Trivedi PK. Regression analysis of count data (2ed.). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge; 2013.
- 65.
Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata–Vol. 2, categorical responses, counts, and survival. Stata Press: College Station, Texas; 2022.
- 66. Salim A, Mackinnon A, Christensen H, Griffiths K. Comparison of data analysis strategies for intent-to-treat analysis in pre-test-post-test designs with substantial dropout rates. Psychiatry Res. 2008;160(3):335–45. pmid:18718673
- 67. Magalhaes E, Stoner A, Palmer J, Schranze R, Grandy S, Amin S, et al. An assessment of mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Community Ment Health J. 2021 Oct;57(7):1267–77. pmid:34283359
- 68. Pongou R, Ahinkorah BO, Maltais S, Mabeu MC, Agarwal A, Yaya S. Psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. PloS One. 2022;17(11):e0277238. pmid:36395148
- 69. Thomeer MB, Moody MD, Yahirun J. Racial and ethnic disparities in mental health and mental health care during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2023;10(2):961–76. pmid:35318615
- 70. Chakrapani V, Newman PA, Sebastian A, Rawat S, Mittal S, Gupta V, et al. Mental health, economic well-being and health care access amid the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed methods study among urban men who have sex with men in India. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2022;30(1):2144087. pmid:36476183
- 71. Sell RL, Krims El. Structural transphobia, homophobia, and biphobia in public health practice: The example of COVID-19 surveillance. Am J Public Health. 2021; 111(9):1620–6. pmid:34111944
- 72. Fish JN, Salerno J, Williams ND, Rinderknecht RG, Drotning KJ, Sayer L, et al. Sexual minority disparities in health and well-being as a consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic differ by sexual identity. LGBT Health. 2021;8(4):263–72. pmid:33887160
- 73. Peterson ZD, Vaughan EL, Carver DN. Sexual identity and psychological reactions to COVID-19. Traumatol. 2021;27(1):6–13.
- 74. Buspavanich P, Lech S, Lermer E, Fischer M, Berger M, Vilsmaier T, et al. Well-being during COVID-19 pandemic: A comparison of individuals with minoritized sexual and gender identities and cis-heterosexual individuals. PLoS One. 2021;16(6):e0252356. pmid:34101746
- 75.
CBC News. Ontario to expand COVID-19 vaccine eligibility to all adults by end of May. CBC, April 29, 2021. Available from: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/covid-19-ontario-april-29-vaccine-modelling-1.6006880 [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 76. Braveman PA, Arkin E, Proctor D, Kauh T, Holm N. Systemic and structural racism: Definitions, examples, health damages, and approaches to dismantling. Health Aff (Millwood). 2022 Feb;41(2):171–8. pmid:35130057
- 77. Newman AM. Moving beyond mistrust: Centering institutional change by decentering the white analytical lens. Bioethics. 2022;36(3):267–73. pmid:34969146
- 78. Jaiswal J, Halkitis PN. Towards a more inclusive and dynamic understanding of medical mistrust informed by science. Behav Med. 2019;45(2):79–85. pmid:31343962
- 79. Newman PA, Reid L, Tepjan S, Fantus S, Allan K, Nyoni T, et al. COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among marginalized populations in the U.S. and Canada: Protocol for a scoping review. PLoS One. 2022;17(3):e0266120. pmid:35358267
- 80. Newman PA, Guta A. How to have sex in an epidemic redux: Reinforcing HIV prevention in the COVID-19 pandemic. AIDS Behav. 2020;4:2260–4. pmid:32500463
- 81. Schueller SM, Glover AC, Rufa AK, Dowdle CL, Gross GD, Karnik NS, et al. A mobile phone–based intervention to improve mental health among homeless young adults: Pilot feasibility trial. JMIR mHealth uHealth. 2019;7(7):e12347. pmid:31267980
- 82. Sokol R, Fisher E. Peer support for the hardly reached: A systematic review. Am J Public Health 2016;106(7):e1–8. pmid:27196645
- 83. Anderson AR, Knee E. Queer isolation or queering isolation? Reflecting upon the ramifications of COVID-19 on the future of queer leisure space. Leis Sci. 2021;43(1–2):118–24.
- 84. Brennan DJ, Card KG, Collict D, Jollimore J, Lachowsky NJ. How might social distancing impact gay, bisexual, queer, trans and two-spirit men in Canada? AIDS Behav. 2020;24(9):2480–2. pmid:32356033
- 85.
City Planning Division, City of Toronto. Toronto Employment Survey 2020. Toronto; April 21, 2021. Available from: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/9829-Toronto-Employment-Survey-2020-Bulletin.pdf [Last accessed: December 13, 2023].
- 86. Thompson A, Stall NM, Born KB, Gibson JL, Allen U, Hopkins J, et al. Benefits of paid sick leave during the COVID-19 pandemic. Science Briefs of the Ontario COVID-19 Science Advisory Table. 2021;2:25;1–13;
- 87. Stratton S. Quasi-experimental design (pre-rest and post-test studies) in prehospital and disaster research. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(6):573–4; pmid:31767051
- 88. Adamson T, Lett E, Glick J, Garrison-Desany HM, Restar A. Experiences of violence and discrimination among LGBTQ+ individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A global cross-sectional analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2022:7(9):e009400. pmid:36130772
- 89. Gibb JK, DuBois LZ, Williams S, McKerracher L, Juster RP, Fields J. Sexual and gender minority health vulnerabilities during the COVID-19 health crisis. Am J Hum Biol. 2020;32(5):e23499. pmid:32910838
- 90. Wallach S, Garner A, Howell S, Adamson T, Baral S, Beyrer C. Address exacerbated health disparities and risks to LGBTQ+ individuals during COVID-19. Health Hum Rights. 2020;22(2):313–6. PMCID: PMC7762918. pmid:33390717
- 91. Newman PA. “It’s not just about marriage; it’s about antidiscrimination”: The California supreme court decision and the future of same-sex marriage in the United States. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2010;22(1/2):183–90.
- 92. Newman PA, Dinh DA, Massaquoi N, Williams CC, Lacombe-Duncan A, Tepjan S, et al. “Going vaccine hunting”: Multilevel influences on COVID-19 vaccination among racialized sexual and gender minority adults: A qualitative study. Hum Vaccin Immunother. 2024. [In press]. pmid:38346919
- 93. Chakrapani V, Newman PA, Sebastian A, Rawat S, Shunmugam M, Sellamuthu P. The impact of COVID-19 on economic well-being and health outcomes among transgender women in India [Perspectives]. Transgend Health. 2022;7(5):381–4. pmid:36406642