Cited by 74LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk

Minority stress and health: A grounded theory exploration among men who have sex with men in China and implications for health research and interventions

Sun, Shufang, Budge, Stephanie, Shen, Wenxuan, Xu, Ge, Liu, Muqing, Feng, Siqi·2020·Social Science & Medicine

Abstract

Rationale Men who have sex with men (MSM) in China are disproportionately affected by HIV and mental health issues. Although predominately western-based research suggests a minority stress perspective to explain health disparities, how Chinese MSM experience stress related to being a sexual minority and how such experiences affect their health have not been carefully examined. Objective This study was a qualitative investigation of how stress related to sexuality (e.g., stigma, discrimination, and oppression) are experienced among MSM in China and how these experiences affect their psychological and behavioral health. Method In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 MSM in China. Grounded theory was employed to guide data analysis. Results Six categories emerged, which included: A Family-Oriented, Heteronormative Culture, Interpersonal Rejections and Marginalization, Internalization of Stigma, the Psychological Impact of Minority Stress, Impact on HIV-related Behavioral Health, and Coping. A conceptual model was developed, which illustrated relationships among categories and described sources, processes, and impact of minority stress among MSM in China. Cultural, social, and internalized sources of minority stress were shown to have detrimental effects on participants' psychological health and HIV-related behavioral health. Various coping strategies shared the purpose of navigating well-being in one's direct environment and in the larger culture. Conclusions…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112917

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sun, S., Budge, S., Shen, W., Xu, G., Liu, M., & Feng, S.
Affiliations
  • Brown University (US)
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Eastern Michigan University (US)
  • Boston College (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
Corresponding author
Sun, Shufang
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-05
Volume
252
Pages
112917
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3012404455
Cited by
74
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4
FWCI
8.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › HIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Keywords
minority stress, men who have sex with men, sexual minority health, HIV prevention, self-stigma, discrimination, heteronormativity, coping strategies, mental health, family rejection, marginalization, China
MeSH terms
Sexual and Gender Minorities, China, Health Status, Humans, Male, Stress, Psychological, HIV Infections, Homosexuality, Male, Social Stigma, Grounded Theory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review