The increased risks are a result of behaviors that are a result of the stress and stigma of living with homophobia and discrimination. reported the results of a retrospective medical chart audit of patients attending a specialist women’s health services clinic providing healthcare to young, low-income women in urban San-Francisco and had significant outreach to the lesbian community [ 19].

In response to stressful life events like cancer, individuals with lower SES may rely on cognitive and behavioral avoidance strategies compared to individuals with higher SES. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women yet income levels in LB women are relatively low. e., having underage children in the household will result in more anxious and avoidant coping strategies) and (H2) higher education attainment ( i. Sexual behavior, sexual attraction, and sexual orientation among adults aged 18–44 in the United States: Data from the 2011–2013 National Survey of Family Growth. Women were also asked to self-report cancer disease stage at the time of interview and type of treatments received, including surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, and/or hormone therapy ( e.To begin with, lesbians are less likely to have adequate health insurance coverage than heterosexual women, as most employers do not offer coverage for unmarried domestic partners. Conversely, breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent women [ 9] and income levels in UK LB women are known to be relatively low [ 8]. Differences and similarities in breast cancer risk assessment models in clinical practice: which model to choose?

A related, but distinct proposition is that differences in socioeconomic status (SES) may account for differences in coping between lesbian and heterosexual women. A considerable limitation is the lack of good quality information on breast cancer incidence and prevalence and known breast cancer risk factors in LB women. Very little information is available in the paper about how the studies were identified and conducted and how their results were analysed. There are likely other explanatory factors, like the conditioned resiliency hypothesis, 5 which account for the additional variation.Unlike women diagnosed before 45 years of age, women with college education who were diagnosed at or after 45 years of age had lower scores on cognitive avoidance after adjusting for all other variables. lists studies assessing the percentages of individual risk factors in LB women compared to heterosexual women where risk models were not used to combine results. e., the Mini-Mental Adjustment to Cancer [Mini-MAC]) was used to measure the following five dimensions of coping: (1) Helplessness–Hopelessness; (2) Anxious Preoccupation; (3) Cognitive Avoidance; (4) Fighting Spirit; and (5) Fatalism. There were insufficient numbers of post-menopausal women to estimate risk so the analyses were restricted to pre-menopausal women and the authors noted that disparities in risk of breast cancer in post-menopausal LB women may be different to those observed in the study. As 1989 was the year that Denmark passed its law permitting homosexual partnerships (the first in the world), the sample was among the first partnerships to be recognised and many may have been in long-term relationships beforehand.

Keeping the inclusion criteria identical, the registry data were further supplemented using community-based methods ( e. Kavanaugh-Lynch MH, White E, Daling JR, Bowen DJ: Correlates of lesbian sexual orientation and the risk of breast cancer. The Gail model results showed conflicting estimates of risk for lesbians compared to the comparator groups. Although the recruitment strategy is not clear, it seems likely that participants were recruited on the basis of being lesbians with breast cancer, or with an interest in breast cancer.This second parent study was conducted from October 2011 to June 2012 and yielded a sample of 535 breast cancer survivors. Cochran SD, Mays VM: Risk of breast cancer mortality among women cohabiting with same sex partners: findings from the national health interview survey, 1997–2003. g., parent) in human development; thus, our conceptual framework is informed by Role Theory and Social Stress Theory. reported the results of seven large studies on lesbian and bisexual women conducted in various parts of the USA between 1987 and 1996 [ 16].

Identifying mechanisms that lead to active coping can inform supportive care for both lesbian and heterosexual women. No women participated in both studies and by combining the two parent studies, the sample for this study increased to 330 self-identified lesbian, 48 bisexual, and 595 heterosexual women with a breast cancer diagnosis. Most importantly, the study design was cross-sectional and thus we are unable to make causal claims. Kavanaugh-Lynch (2002) did not ask sexual orientation directly but used three different demographic indicators to suggest lesbian sexual orientation [ 17]. Having children mediated the association between lesbian identity and anxious preoccupation (H1), but only among women diagnosed at younger ages (H3).There were eleven relevant papers, which have been split into three parts – risk models, incidence model and risk factor estimates. The results showed that a 1% increase in same sex partnered households was associated with a 13% increase in breast cancer, after adjusting for age, ethnicity and socio-economic status.