Abstract P173: Examining Sexual Identity Differences in Ideal Cardiovascular Health

Abstract

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests that sexual minority (e.g., gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer) adults in the United States are at increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared to heterosexual adults. However, the majority of cardiovascular health (CVH) research among sexual minority adults has focused on investigating differences in individual CVH metrics rather than comprehensive measures of CVH. Methods: We analyzed nationally representative data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health to examine sexual identity differences in ideal CVH (i.e., individual CVH metrics and cumulative ideal CVH score) among adults. Participants received a score of 0 (poor), 1 (intermediate), or 2 (ideal) for each CVH metric, and scores were summed to calculate cumulative ideal CVH scores (continuous; range 0-12). We ran sex-stratified multiple logistic and linear regression models to examine sexual identity differences in ideal CVH. Models were adjusted for demographics, health insurance coverage, and adverse childhood experiences. Results: The final sample included 3,492 participants with a mean age of 21.8 (+/- 1.76) years. Approximately 60% were female, over 76% were White and around 90% were non-Hispanic. Compared to exclusively heterosexual women, mostly heterosexual (AOR 0.89, 95% CI = 0.79-0.99) and lesbian (AOR 0.73, 95% CI = 0.55-0.91) women had lower odds of meeting ideal criteria for tobacco use. In contrast, lesbian women had higher odds of meeting ideal criteria for glycosylated hemoglobin (AOR 1.22, 95% CI = 1.09-1.35). Among men, compared to exclusively heterosexual men, mostly heterosexual (AOR 0.87, 95% CI = 0.76-0.97) and bisexual (AOR 0.86, 95% CI = 0.74-0.97) men had lower odds of meeting ideal criteria for tobacco use and blood pressure, respectively. Gay (AOR 0.79, 95% CI = 0.67-0.90) and bisexual (AOR 0.75, 95% CI = 0.54-0.96) men had lower odds of meeting ideal criteria for physical activity, but gay men had higher odds of meeting ideal criteria for body mass index (AOR 1.25, 95% CI = 1.00-1.55). No sexual identity differences were observed for cumulative ideal CVH scores among women and men. Conclusions: As one of the first studies to use nationally representative longitudinal data to examine sexual identity differences in ideal CVH, this study makes an important contribution to the literature on CVH among sexual minority adults. Findings highlight significant CVH disparities in sexual minority adults and suggest there is a need to develop interventions that focus on improving their CVH. Future research is needed to investigate factors that may contribute to the CVH disparities observed among sexual minority adults in this study.