Exploring the Impact of Online Mental Health Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning Adults Compared to Heterosexual Adults: Pretest-Posttest Survey Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) individuals faced greater mental health challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic than binary-gender heterosexual (non-LGBTQ+) adults. The Together for Wellness/Juntos por Nuestro Bienestar website with free well-being resources, developed during the COVID-19 pandemic with partner input, included LGBTQ+ resources. A pilot evaluation among adults (aged ≥18 years) found engagement with and use of the website 4 to 6 weeks before follow-up was associated with reduced (pretest-posttest) depression. Results for LGBTQ+ participants were not reported. Objective This study describes baseline depression, anxiety, and website engagement for LGBTQ+ compared with non-LGBTQ+ adults and pretest-posttest changes in depression and anxiety (the primary outcome). Methods Community partners invited health and social services providers, clients, and partners to visit the website and complete a survey app (Chorus Innovations) at baseline (September 20, 2021-April 4, 2022) and a 4- to 6-week follow-up (October 22, 2021-May 17, 2022). LGBTQ+ adults were compared to non-LGBTQ+ adults in demographics, website use, depression, and anxiety. Sensitivity analyses were adjusted for nonresponse (inverse probability weighting). Regression analyses identified predictors for reduction (pretest-posttest) in depression (2-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-2]) and anxiety (2-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale [GAD-2]). Results Of 315 adults who completed the baseline survey and 193 who completed the follow-up survey, 64 (20.3%) and 37 (19.2%), respectively, were LGBTQ+. At baseline, LGBTQ+ compared to non-LGBTQ+ adults had higher scores on the PHQ-2 (mean 2.4, SD 1.7 vs 1.3, SD 1.3; t294=5.31; P<.001) and GAD-2 (mean 2.7, SD 1.7 vs 1.6, SD 1.5; t295=4.96; P<.001) and more COVID-19 stressors (mean score 8.1, SD 4.4 vs 6.5, SD 4.0; t298=2.8; P=.003). Before follow-up, LGBTQ+ adults had similar website use (P=.65) and likelihood to recommend the website to others (P=.26) compared to non-LGBTQ+ adults. LGBTQ+ adults had more reduction (pretest-posttest) in mean GAD-2 scores (−0.8, SD 2.0 vs 0.0, SD 1.2; t177=−3.08; P=.002) and mean PHQ-2 scores (−0.7, SD 1.7 vs −0.1, SD 1.4; t180=−2.16; P=.03) compared to non-LGBTQ+ adults. For LGBTQ+ adults, predictors of pretest-posttest decline (adjusting for nonresponse) in mean GAD-2 scores included visiting the website and using resources 4 to 6 weeks before (β=−1.95, 95% CI −3.20 to −0.70; P=.003); for decline in mean PHQ-2, visiting website/using resources had a trend as predictor that was not significant adjusting for nonresponse (β=-.94 (-2.00, 0.013), P=.09). Conclusions LGBTQ+ adults reported higher baseline depression, anxiety, and COVID-19 stressors than non-LGBTQ+ adults. Among LGBTQ+ but not among non-LGBTQ+ adults, higher website use was associated with reduced anxiety over time. Findings suggest that online resources may promote well-being for LGBTQ+ adults in pandemics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".