BACKGROUND: Sexual and gender diverse people face intersecting factors affecting their well-being and livelihood. These include homophobic reactions, stigma or discrimination at the workplace and in healthcare facilities, economic vulnerability, lack of social support, and HIV. This study aimed to examine the association between such factors and symptoms of anxiety and depression among sexual and gender diverse people.
METHODS: This study is based on a sample of 108,389 gay, bisexual, queer and questioning men, and transfeminine people from 161 countries collected through a cross-sectional internet survey. We developed a multinomial logistic regression for each group to study the associations of the above factors at different severity scores for anxiety and depression symptoms.
RESULTS: Almost a third (30.3%) of the participants reported experiencing moderate to severe symptoms of anxiety and depression. Higher severity scores were found for transfeminine people (39%), and queer or questioning people (34.8%). Severe symptoms of anxiety and depression were strongly correlated with economic hardship for all groups. Compared to those who are HIV-negative, those living with HIV were more likely to report severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, and the highest score was among those who do not know their HIV status. Transfeminine people were the most exposed group, with more than 80% higher risk for those living with HIV suffering from anxiety and depression. Finally, homophobic reactions were strongly associated with anxiety and depression. The relative risk of severe anxiety and depression was 3.47 times higher for transfeminine people facing transphobic reactions than those with no symptoms. Moreover, anxiety and depression correlate with stigma or discrimination in the workplace and healthcare facilities.
CONCLUSIONS: The strong association between the severity of anxiety and depression, and socioeconomic inequality and HIV status highlights the need for concrete actions to meet the United Nations' pledge to end inequalities faced by communities and people affected by HIV. Moreover, the association between stigma or discrimination and anxiety and depression among sexual and gender diverse people is alarming. There is a need for bold structural public health interventions, particularly for transfeminine, queer and questioning people who represent three communities under the radar of national HIV programmes.

With the low adherence to voluntary mutual health insurance, Senegal’s policymakers have sought to understand the feasibility of compulsory health insurance membership. This study aims to measure the acceptability of mandatory membership in community-based mutual health insurance (CBHI) and to understand its possible administrative modalities. The study consists of a national survey among a representative population sample selected by marginal quotas. The survey was conducted in 2022 over the phone, with a random composition method involving 914 people. The questionnaire measured the socio-economic characteristics of households, their level of acceptability concerning voluntary and compulsory membership, and their level of confidence in CBHIs and the health system. Respondents preferred voluntary (86%) over mandatory (70%) membership of a CBHI. The gap between voluntary and compulsory membership scores was smaller among women (p = 0.040), people under 35 (p = 0.033), and people with no health coverage (p = 0.011). Voluntary or compulsory membership was correlated (p = 0.000) to trust in current CBHIs and health systems. Lack of trust in the CBHI management has been more disadvantageous for acceptance of the mandatory than the voluntary membership. No particular preference emerged as the preferred administrative channel (e.g. death certificate, identity card, etc.) to enforce the mandatory option. The results confirmed the well-known challenges of building universal health coverage based on CBHIs—a poorly appreciated model whose low performance reduces the acceptability of populations to adhere to it, whether voluntary or mandatory. Suppose Senegal persists in its health insurance approach. In that case, it will be essential to strengthen the performance and funding of CBHIs, and to gain population trust to enable a mandatory or more systemic membership.

Background:
Given the importance of the continuous follow-up of chronic patients, we evaluated the performance of French private practice general practitioners (GPs) practicing in multi-professional group practices (MGP) regarding chronic care management during the first Covid-19 lockdown in Spring 2020 compared to GPs not in MGP. We consider two outcomes: continuity of care provision for chronic patients and proactivity in contacting these patients.
Methods:
The cross-sectional web questionnaire of 1191 GPs took place in April 2020. We exploit self-reported data on: 1) the frequency of consultations for chronic patients during lockdown compared to their "typical" week before the pandemic, along with 2) GPs' proactive behaviour when contacting their chronic patients. We use probit and bivariate probit models (adjusted for endogeneity of choice of engagement in MGP) to test whether GPs in MGP had significantly different responses to the Covid-19 crisis compared to those practicing outside MGP.
Results:
Out of 1191 participants (response rate: 43.1%), around 40% of GPs were female and 34% were younger than 50 years old. Regression results indicate that GPs in MGP were less likely to experience a drop in consultations related to complications of chronic diseases (- 45.3%). They were also more proactive (+ 13.4%) in contacting their chronic patients compared to their peers practicing outside MGP.
Conclusion:
We demonstrate that the MGP organisational formula was beneficial to the follow-up of patients with chronic conditions during the lockdown; therefore, it appears beneficial to expand integrated practices, since they perform better when facing a major shock. Further research is needed to confirm the efficiency of these integrated practices outside the particular pandemic setup.

The public acceptability of a policy is an important issue in democracies, in particular for anti-COVID-19 policies, which require the adherence of the population to be applicable and efficient. Discrete choice experiment (DCE) can help elicit preference ranking among various policies for the whole population and subgroups. Using a representative sample of the French population, we apply DCE methods to assess the acceptability of various anti-COVID-19 measures, separately and as a package. Owing to the methods, we determine the extent to which acceptability depends on personal characteristics: political orientation, health vulnerability, or age. The young population differs in terms of policy preferences and their claim for monetary compensation, suggesting a tailored policy for them. The paper provides key methodological tools based on microeconomic evaluation of individuals’ preferences for improving the design of public health policies.