What You Missed | June 2026
Science moves fast, and interesting discoveries often pass by before we’ve had a chance to unpack them. This series is your monthly catch up with a science‑savvy friend – it’s evidence-based, accessible, and a little curious. Each post highlights exciting new women’s health or sex and gender research from around the globe and asks the question: what does this really tell us about how our minds, bodies, and societies work?
For June (Pride month!) we will be exploring LGBTQ+ Health.
Disclaimer:Here in North America (Canada), we recognize Two-Spirit (2S) nations and the inclusive terminology is 2SLGBTQ+. While this commentary draws on European research, we recognize the need for Indigenous and community-led approaches.
Author: Romina Garcia de Leon, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto (Blog Coordinator)
Gender conformity, and depression
Title: Self-perceived gender conformity relates to depressive symptoms across Europe
Author(s): Hanna Wierenga, Birgit Derntl & Pia Schober
Journal: Nature mental health
Where is this research coming from? Germany
According to the authors and various experts in the field, gender is defined as a social construct with multiple dimensions, including identity, expression, values and beliefs. Whereas, sex refers to biological characteristics (e.g., genitals, hormones, gonads, and chromosomes). There is a body of research in the depression field examining sex differences that shows that females are at higher risk for developing depression than males. Additionally, those that do not conform to traditional gender norms (who may identify as genderqueer, or nonbinary) also show higher risk of mood disorders, and a lower sense of belonging. With these findings, researchers are now exploring ways to study gender by examining dimensions of femininity, and masculinity rather than relying on binary terms.
The current study examines how people’s self-perceived gender conformity (whether they believe they fit more masculine or feminine norms) relates to depressive symptoms across 24 European countries. The researchers used survey data to (1) ask individuals how they conformed to gender norms in their behaviour, appearance or roles using a continuous gender conformity score and (2), measured depressive scores using the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) 8.
The researchers found that people who saw themselves as conforming less to their gender norms reported higher levels of depressive symptoms compared to more conforming people in the same sex or gender. On top of that, these effects were stronger in people who lived in countries with lower gender equality (women’s share in politics, employment rates, attitudes and support for gender equality, and for homosexuality). Individuals who lived in more gender equal countries and did not conform to gender stereotypes, reported lower levels of depressive symptoms. This tells us that the impact of not conforming to gender norms may depend, in part, on where someone lives. The researchers also replicated the finding that women report higher depressive symptoms than men, with the lowest depressive scores reported from men who highly conformed to gender norms.
What does this mean?
These findings make it clear that examining sex alone or gender in binary terms could prevent us from finding predictors of depression and uncovering what factors could be addressed to help people that experience societal pressures. Most importantly, these results highlight that being gender non-conforming itself is not a risk factor for depressive scores, but rather the impact of society and equality is playing a role. Therefore by reducing stigma, and advocating for policies that support gender queer people, depression rates could go down.
Questions We’re Pondering
- Which specific areas of society are more influential in increasing stigma and causing distress in gender diverse individuals? Could it be higher in institutions such as healthcare, in the workplace, or in social interactions?
- How does race, and ethnicity play into self-perceived gender norms? Do some cultural backgrounds increase acceptance of gender non-conformity, or the other way around?
- If the researchers measured the menstrual cycle (in those that cycle) would reported perceived depressive scores change?
Addiction services for LGBTQ+ women
Title: Sexual minority (LGBQ+) women’s experiences of accessing addiction services: a qualitative study
Author(s): Miriam Hillyard, Jamie Hakim, Colin Drummond, Katharine Rimes, Emmert Roberts
Journal: Frontiers in Public health Life-Course Epidemiology and Social Inequalities in Health
Where is this research coming from? England
Individuals that are a part of the LGBTQ+ community, also known as sexual minorities, experience higher inequities in health, and society. Additionally, substance use rates are higher in sexual minorities than in cisgendered heterosexual individuals. Given that substance use is already a stigmatized disease, being a part of a group that already faces higher discrimination and health inequities poses a separate set of concerns.
The researchers of the current study used a qualitative approach to understand how sexual minority women (identifying as bisexual, pansexual, lesbian, queer, trans, non-binary, and other non-heterosexual identities) experience access to substance use treatment services in England. The authors were interested in measuring what increases or decreases the chances of receiving care, and how services could be improved to better meet their individual needs. The researchers conducted interviews with participants who self-identified as part of the LGBTQ+ community, to explore patterns and themes related to their own diverse perspectives.
Three main themes emerged.
Experiencing inadequate care
- The first theme related to experiences of heteronormativity which led to inadequate care. Many participants described that substance use services were built around cisgendered heterosexual assumptions (such as family, relationships) and that providers were not comfortable in discussing their sexual identity. This led to feelings of “erasure” in the healthcare system. This was particularly damaging as some people felt the “why” behind their addictions were rooted in growing up in repressive cultures, as well as stress and trauma (such as repressive religious upbringing and even conversion therapy).
Ruptures in alliances, being passed on
- The second theme revealed that participants felt barriers to access and engagement in receiving treatment services. Many described sharing traumatic and abusive experiences with their service provider, which then led them to be passed on to other providers that were deemed “more qualified”, such as psychologists. Participants claimed that this created inconsistency in their providers, which felt like a separation between “substance use disorders” and “mental health issues” even though participants felt they were very much intertwined.
Queer acceptance and empowerment
- The third theme explored what “affirming” care looks like. Participants described how inclusive language, and having staff who demonstrate openness and knowledge about LGBTQ+ lives positively impacted their treatment process. The feelings of safety, and validation, and not having to educate providers on basic LGBTQ+ issues facilitated a positive environment, and increased usage of treatment services.
Beyond the themes, the researchers noted that few women who identified as a sexual minority sought out substance use services to begin with.
What does this mean? This study gives voice to a marginalized group who are underrepresented within the field, and highlights how institutional discrimination can seriously hinder access to addiction healthcare services for sexual minorities. In this case, women identifying as sexual minorities highlighted that in order for these services to be inclusive, there must be training within staff, and explicit inclusivity, leaving no room for unintentional or intentional discrimination. The themes also tell us how impactful explicit inclusivity can be for those seeking and receiving proper care. The study pushes the field to consider system-level changes to health care provider training and education with intentionality.
Questions We’re Pondering
- Where does heteronormativity show up most frequently in healthcare settings, and what kind of education would be most valuable for healthcare practitioners?
- How can we ensure that mental health and substance use are treated together with a holistic approach?
- Why do sexual minority women (LGBTQ+) struggle to seek out substance use services, and what forms of support would allow them to ask for help?
Healthcare Training on LGBTQ+ Care
Title: Factors Influencing Clinical Skills for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Individuals’ Care Among Italian Primary, Sexual and Reproductive, and Mental Health Practitioners
Author(s): Gianluca Cruciani, Maria Quintigliano, Selene Mezzalira, and Nicola Carone
Journal: LGBT Health
Where is this research coming from? Italy
The healthcare field is a large collection of practitioners, like nurses, general practitioners/doctors (oncologists, gastroenterologists and more), and mental health practitioners (psychologists/psychotherapists, psychiatrists and more). Although some practitioners are provided similar curriculums and training, there are large discrepancies within healthcare on how to properly care for LGBTQ+ patients.
This study looks at what shapes Italian healthcare practitioners ability and confidence in caring for LGBTQ+ patients across different primary care, sexual, reproductive health, and mental health settings. The researchers did this by using a cross-sectional survey to understand training, attitudes and personal contact with LGBTQ patients.
The study revealed that out of all practitioners, primary care practitioners (family doctors) reported the lowest overall clinical skills, more negative attitudes and more prejudice towards LGBTQ+ patients. These same doctors also had lowest attendance of LGBTQ+ specific training. Mental health practitioners showed lower implicit biases towards lesbian and gay patients than primary care providers. The authors attribute this finding to the nature of the mental health field that promotes inclusivity and openness to help treat patients, as well as inclusivity training that specifically includes 2SLGBTQ+ care. They also found that higher clinical knowledge and preparedness correlated with increased LGBTQ+ training, telling us that practitioners that were trained more thoroughly had better attitudes towards LGBTQ+ patients.
What does this mean? This study suggests that better care for LGBTQ+ patients is not just about knowledge, but targeting biases against LBGTQ+ patients. The results also suggest that healthcare practitioners that have positive attitudes towards LGBTQ+ patients exhibit better clinical skills altogether. Meaning that being an inclusive doctor in turn creates a stronger clinician. The authors argue that training for healthcare practitioners (urgently for primary care practitioners) must be mandatory. Although this study was set in Italy, cisgendered heteronormativity exists across the globe, these findings show us how discrimination can occur directly from clinicians, and outlines what professions to target for improving healthcare quality and equity.
Questions We’re Pondering
- Why do primary care practitioners have more negative attitudes toward LGBTQ+ people in Italy, and how can we encourage them to attend LGBTQ+ specific training?
- What shifts are required in the medical education system to prioritize inclusivity and equity in care?
- Given that Italy does not provide marriage equality to LGBTQ+ people, how would these results shift in a country with more progressive policies?
In general, what did we learn?
These studies demonstrate improving healthcare for everyone requires action at many levels. Addressing bias, moving beyond cisgender heteronormative assumptions in healthcare practices, and embedding implicit inclusivity and equity into patient care are all important. Even when discrimination is not explicit, a lack of inclusivity can deter people from accessing the proper care they need and deserve. Building a health care system where everyone feels seen, respected and supported is essential to achieving better health for not just some, but for everyone.
