Mental Health Among LGBTQ+ Farmers in the United States

ABSTRACT

Objectives

The objective of the current study is to describe mental health among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) people who work in agriculture in the U.S.

Methods

This study uses a survey of LGBTQ+ adults who work in agriculture in the U.S. (N = 148), including questions about LGBTQ+ identity, farming background, depression symptoms (PHQ-8) and diagnosis, anxiety symptoms (GAD-7) and diagnosis, suicide risk, and stress. Data were analyzed using SPSS, including descriptive statistics, chi-square tests, and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results

Over one-third (36.1%) had probable depression (PHQ-8 ≥ 10), and 71.9% were experiencing mild to severe depression symptoms. Nearly half (46.2%) had probable anxiety disorder (GAD-7 ≥ 8), and 69.7% experienced mild to severe anxiety symptoms. Over half (51.7%) were at significant risk for suicide. Greater proportions of men had probable anxiety disorder, probable depression, and suicide risk compared to non-men. Greater proportions gay participants had probable depression, as did beef producers. Perceived stress was higher for men, lesbian and gay participants, transgender participants, and those in beef production. Resilient coping was highest among participants who were genderqueer or genderfluid, bisexual, and those in field crop production.

Conclusion

LGBTQ+ farmers in the current sample experienced depression and anxiety at higher rates than general farming or general LGBTQ+ samples, although suicide risk was lower than for general LGBTQ+ samples. Future research should explore how working in agriculture may be protective against suicide risk for LGBTQ+ farmers, as well as how specific farm stressors are related to LGBTQ+ farmer mental health.

KEYWORDS:

• LGBTQ+
• mental health
• farmers
• farm stress

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by the United States Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture Hatch program. The findings and conclusions in this manuscript have not been formally disseminated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.