Sexual orientation and sex differences in socioeconomic status: a population-based investigation in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health

• Published in: Journal of epidemiology and community health (1979) 2018-11, Vol.72 (11), p.1016-1026
• Main Authors: Conron, Kerith J, Goldberg, Shoshana K, Halpern, Carolyn T
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adolescent; Adolescents; Adult; Children; Female; Females; Gays & lesbians; Health disparities; Humans; Longitudinal Studies; Male; Males; Minority & ethnic groups; Population-based studies; Poverty; Public policy; Research report; Sex differences; Sex Factors; Sexual Behavior; Social Class; Social classes; Social interactions; Socioeconomic factors; Socioeconomic status; Socioeconomics; Teenagers; United States
• ISSN: 0143-005X; 1470-2738; 1470-2738
• DOI: 10.1136/jech-2017-209860

BackgroundSocioeconomic status (SES) is a fundamental contributor to health; however, limited research has examined sexual orientation differences in SES.Methods2008–2009 data from 14 051 participants (ages 24–32 years) in the US-based, representative, National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health were analysed using multivariable regressions that adjusted for age, race-ethnicity, childhood SES, urbanicity and Census region, separately for females and males. Modification by racial minority status (black or Latino vs white, non-Hispanic) was also explored.ResultsAmong females, sexual minorities (SM) (10.5% of females) were less likely to graduate college, and were more likely to be unemployed, poor/near poor, to receive public assistance and to report economic hardship and lower social status than heterosexuals. Adjusting for education attenuated many of these differences. Among males, SM (4.2% of males) were more likely than heterosexuals to be college graduates; however, they also had lower personal incomes. Lower rates of homeownership were observed among SM, particularly racial minority SM females. For males, household poverty patterns differed by race-ethnicity: among racial minority males, SM were more likely than heterosexuals to be living at >400% federal poverty level), whereas the pattern was reversed among whites.ConclusionsSexual minorities, especially females, are of lower SES than their heterosexual counterparts. SES should be considered a potential mediator of SM stigma on health. Studies of public policies that may produce, as well as mitigate, observed SES inequities, are warranted.