A systematic review of mental disorder, suicide, and deliberate self harm in lesbian, gay and bisexual people

Background: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people may be at higher risk of mental disorders than heterosexual people.Method: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence of mental disorder, substance misuse, suicide, suicidal ideation and deliberate self harm in LGB people. We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, the Cochrane Library Database, the Web of Knowledge, the Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, the Campbell Collaboration and grey literature databases for articles published January 1966 to April 2005. We also used Google and Google Scholar and contacted authors where necessary. We searched all terms related to homosexual, lesbian and bisexual people and all terms related to mental disorders, suicide, and deliberate self harm. We included papers on population based studies which contained concurrent heterosexual comparison groups and valid definition of sexual orientation and mental health outcomes.Results: Of 13706 papers identified, 476 were initially selected and 28 (25 studies) met inclusion criteria. Only one study met all our four quality criteria and seven met three of these criteria. Data was extracted on 214,344 heterosexual and 11,971 non heterosexual people. Meta-analyses revealed a two fold excess in suicide attempts in lesbian, gay and bisexual people [ pooled risk ratio for lifetime risk 2.47 (CI 1.87, 3.28)]. The risk for depression and anxiety disorders (over a period of 12 months or a lifetime) on meta-analyses were at least 1.5 times higher in lesbian, gay and bisexual people (RR range 1.54-2.58) and alcohol and other substance dependence over 12 months was also 1.5 times higher (RR range 1.51-4.00). Results were similar in both sexes but meta analyses revealed that lesbian and bisexual women were particularly at risk of substance dependence (alcohol 12 months: RR 4.00, CI 2.85, 5.61; drug dependence: RR 3.50, CI 1.87, 6.53; any substance use disorder RR 3.42, CI 1.97-5.92), while lifetime prevalence of suicide attempt was especially high in gay and bisexual men (RR 4.28, CI 2.32, 7.88).Conclusion: LGB people are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse, and deliberate self harm than heterosexual people

Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is the leading cause of fatal head injuries in children younger than 2 years. A multidisciplinary team bases this diagnosis on history, physical examination, imaging and laboratory findings. Because the etiology of the injury is multifactorial (shaking, shaking and impact, impact, etc.) the current best and inclusive term is AHT. There is no controversy concerning the medical validity of the existence of AHT, with multiple components including subdural hematoma, intracranial and spinal changes, complex retinal hemorrhages, and rib and other fractures that are inconsistent with the provided mechanism of trauma. The workup must exclude medical diseases that can mimic AHT. However, the courtroom has become a forum for speculative theories that cannot be reconciled with generally accepted medical literature. There is no reliable medical evidence that the following processes are causative in the constellation of injuries of AHT: cerebral sinovenous thrombosis, hypoxic-ischemic injury, lumbar puncture or dysphagic choking/vomiting. There is no substantiation, at a time remote from birth, that an asymptomatic birth-related subdural hemorrhage can result in rebleeding and sudden collapse. Further, a diagnosis of AHT is a medical conclusion, not a legal determination of the intent of the perpetrator or a diagnosis of murder. We hope that this consensus document reduces confusion by recommending to judges and jurors the tools necessary to distinguish genuine evidence-based opinions of the relevant medical community from legal arguments or etiological speculations that are unwarranted by the clinical findings, medical evidence and evidence-based literature

Couple experiences of provider-initiated couple HIV testing in an antenatal clinic in Lusaka, Zambia: lessons for policy and practice.

BACKGROUND: Couple HIV testing has been recognized as critical to increase uptake of HIV testing, facilitate disclosure of HIV status to marital partner, improve access to treatment, care and support, and promote safe sex. The Zambia national protocol on integrated prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV (PMTCT) allows for the provision of couple testing in antenatal clinics. This paper examines couple experiences of provider-initiated couple HIV testing at a public antenatal clinic and discusses policy and practical lessons. METHODS: Using a narrative approach, open-ended in-depth interviews were held with couples (n = 10) who underwent couple HIV testing; women (n = 5) and men (n = 2) who had undergone couple HIV testing but were later abandoned by their spouses; and key informant interviews with lay counsellors (n = 5) and nurses (n = 2). On-site observations were also conducted at the antenatal clinic and HIV support group meetings. Data collection was conducted between March 2010 and September 2011. Data was organised and managed using Atlas ti, and analysed and interpreted thematically using content analysis approach. RESULTS: Health workers sometimes used coercive and subtle strategies to enlist women's spouses for couple HIV testing resulting in some men feeling 'trapped' or 'forced' to test as part of their paternal responsibility. Couple testing had some positive outcomes, notably disclosure of HIV status to marital partner, renewed commitment to marital relationship, uptake of and adherence to treatment and formation of new social networks. However, there were also negative repercussions including abandonment, verbal abuse and cessation of sexual relations. Its promotion also did not always lead to safe sex as this was undermined by gendered power relationships and the desires for procreation and sexual intimacy. CONCLUSIONS: Couple HIV testing provides enormous bio-medical and social benefits and should be encouraged. However, testing strategies need to be non-coercive. Providers of couple HIV testing also need to be mindful of the intimate context of partner relationships including couples' childbearing aspirations and lived experiences. There is also need to make antenatal clinics more male-friendly and responsive to men's health needs, as well as being attentive and responsive to gender inequality during couselling sessions