See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
Research article
Hong Yan
Corresponding Author
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
Background: Literature in the West suggested that bisexual men have a higher smoking rate compared to gay men. Data on patterns of smoking among gay and bisexual men are limited in Eastern Asian countries like China. This study examined the cigarette smoking prevalence for gay versus bisexual men in China and their unique minority stress - smoking pathways.
Methods: Between September 2017 and November 2018, we surveyed a convenience sample of 538 gay men and 138 bisexual men recruited from local sexual minority organizations in four metropolitan cities in China (i.e., Beijing, Wuhan, Nanchang, and Changsha). Measures included sexual orientation, sociodemographics, theory-based minority stressors, depressive symptoms, and past 30-day cigarette smoking. Two-group (gay men vs. bisexual men) structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test possible distinct mechanisms between theory-based stressors, depressive symptoms, and cigarette smoking among gay men and bisexual men, respectively.
Results: The mean age of participants was 26.51 (SD = 8.41) years old and 76.3% of them had at least a college degree. Bisexual men reported a higher rate of cigarette smoking compared to gay men (39.9% vs. 27.3%). Two-group SEM indicated that the pathways for cigarette smoking were not different between gay and bisexual men. Higher rejection anticipation was associated with greater depressive symptoms (standardized β = 0.32, p < .001), and depressive symptoms were not associated with cigarette smoking.
Conclusions: Minority stress, specifically rejection anticipation, may be critical considerations in addressing depressive symptoms, but not smoking, among both gay and bisexual men in China.
Keywords
Minority stress; depression; cigarette; smoking; gay men; bisexual men; China
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Dec, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2020
Version 2
Posted 27 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Jul, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 06 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Feb, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 20 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 08 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 06 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 26 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 12 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 11 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 11 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 10 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Learn more about our company.
A new preprint design is coming!
We have improved readability, clarity, accessibility, and opportunities for engagement.
See the published version of this preprint at BMC Public Health.
This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Hong Yan
Corresponding Author
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Published
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
No community comments so far
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 11 Jan, 2021
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jan, 2021
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 11 Dec, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 29 Oct, 2020
Editor assigned
On 27 Oct, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 27 Oct, 2020
Editor invited
On 27 Oct, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 16 Sep, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Sep, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 21 Aug, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 21 Aug, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 19 Aug, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 18 Aug, 2020
Editor assigned
On 17 Aug, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 16 Aug, 2020
Editor invited
On 16 Aug, 2020
Version 2
Posted 27 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 15 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 06 Jul, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 06 Jul, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 04 Jul, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 04 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 03 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 03 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 20 May, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 19 May, 2020
Editor invited
On 19 May, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 21 Feb, 2020
Review #4 received
Received 20 Feb, 2020
Review #3 received
Received 08 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #4 agreed
On 06 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #3 agreed
On 26 Jan, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 05 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 23 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 22 Dec, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 21 Dec, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Dec, 2019
Editor assigned
On 12 Nov, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 11 Nov, 2019
Editor invited
On 11 Nov, 2019
First submitted
On 10 Nov, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
License:
This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License. Read Full License
View the published article at BMC Public Health.
Background: Literature in the West suggested that bisexual men have a higher smoking rate compared to gay men. Data on patterns of smoking among gay and bisexual men are limited in Eastern Asian countries like China. This study examined the cigarette smoking prevalence for gay versus bisexual men in China and their unique minority stress - smoking pathways.
Methods: Between September 2017 and November 2018, we surveyed a convenience sample of 538 gay men and 138 bisexual men recruited from local sexual minority organizations in four metropolitan cities in China (i.e., Beijing, Wuhan, Nanchang, and Changsha). Measures included sexual orientation, sociodemographics, theory-based minority stressors, depressive symptoms, and past 30-day cigarette smoking. Two-group (gay men vs. bisexual men) structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to test possible distinct mechanisms between theory-based stressors, depressive symptoms, and cigarette smoking among gay men and bisexual men, respectively.
Results: The mean age of participants was 26.51 (SD = 8.41) years old and 76.3% of them had at least a college degree. Bisexual men reported a higher rate of cigarette smoking compared to gay men (39.9% vs. 27.3%). Two-group SEM indicated that the pathways for cigarette smoking were not different between gay and bisexual men. Higher rejection anticipation was associated with greater depressive symptoms (standardized β = 0.32, p < .001), and depressive symptoms were not associated with cigarette smoking.
Conclusions: Minority stress, specifically rejection anticipation, may be critical considerations in addressing depressive symptoms, but not smoking, among both gay and bisexual men in China.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Loading...