Gay, lesbian and bisexual people have a higher prevalence of mental disorders; the review explains it as minority stress
Meyer's 2003 review used meta-analyses to show that "LGBs have a higher prevalence of mental disorders than heterosexuals" and explained the excess as minority stress: "stigma, prejudice, and discrimination" as the exposure.
Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The minority stress model is a framework the author proposes, not a tested causal chain; the paper itself lists future research as an aim. Prevalence estimates depend on how orientation was measured in the underlying studies.
Once homosexuality stopped being a diagnosis, the research question changed. It is no longer whether being gay is an illness; it is why gay, lesbian and bisexual people carry more depression and anxiety than heterosexuals, and this is the paper that set the modern frame.
Significant findings
Meyer "reviews research evidence on the prevalence of mental disorders in lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (LGBs) and shows, using meta-analyses, that LGBs have a higher prevalence of mental disorders than heterosexuals."
The explanation offered is not orientation. It is the environment: the paper "offers a conceptual framework for understanding this excess in prevalence of disorder in terms of minority stress--explaining that stigma, prejudice, and discrimination create a hostile and stressful social environment that causes mental health problems."
The model names the processes: "the experience of prejudice events, expectations of rejection, hiding and concealing, internalized homophobia, and ameliorative coping processes."
The other direction
A conceptual framework is a way of organising evidence, not a proof of cause. The meta-analyses show a difference in prevalence; the minority stress model is the explanation the author finds most consistent with it. Other explanations are possible and the paper's own agenda item is "suggestions for future research directions", which is a way of saying the model was not yet tested end to end in 2003. Prevalence studies of the period also depended on how orientation was asked about and who answered.
What this does not show
It does not diagnose an identity. Documenting that a group carries more disorder is a statement about the group's exposure, and the paper says so. It does not report a treatment or recommend one.
Worth asking
If the excess is caused by the environment, what in a person's environment is doing the work, and which of those things can change?
Source
Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence — Meyer IH (2003)
Reputable peer-reviewed journal
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
How this was scored
- Study design
- Systematic review of observational studies
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
- Published in
- Reputable peer-reviewed journal
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published September 29, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
veisund rates this source "early signal". Suggestive but preliminary. Not settled. It scores 52 out of 100 on our published rubric. One caveat travels with that badge: The minority stress model is a framework the author proposes, not a tested causal chain; the paper itself lists future research as an aim. Prevalence estimates depend on how orientation was measured in the underlying studies. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence — Meyer IH (2003). Published in: Reputable peer-reviewed journal. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Who paid for this research, and does that matter?
Study design: Systematic review of observational studies. Funding: Funding not disclosed. Independence from the proponent is not recorded. Industry sponsorship is one of the most reliably measured biases in medicine, which is why funding carries real weight in the score rather than sitting in a footnote.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.