also conducted adjusted logistic regressions, controlling for age, income, and education in the comparisons by sexual orientation and gender identity. The summary of findings were based on the results of the adjusted analyses. In addition, we examined how service need and use, housing, resources and risks, and health-related indicators were associated with background characteristics (gender, age, race/ethnicity, income, education, relationship status, living arrangement, and HIV/AIDS status) utilizing Student’s t-tests, one-way ANOVAs, Pearson’s χ2 tests, or Fisher’s exact tests, as appropriate. In this study, lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals are treated as distinct groups, but bisexual women and men were combined due to the small sample sizes. We stratified participants into three age groups: those aged 60-69, those 70-79, and those 80 and older. For statistical comparisons for race and ethnicity, we included Hispanic, non-Hispanic white, African American, and Asian American; other racial and ethnic groups were excluded from the analyses due to insufficient sample size. Information regarding measures is detailed in Key Terms. Unavailable in most other studies, the sample of LGBT older adults in this study are age 60 and older and diverse in many respects. However, there are limitations that are important to consider. First, the design and sampling procedures used in this study do not allow for the generalizability of the findings. Thus, the findings can’t be generalized beyond those that participated in the study. Recruitment of the underrepresented groups were a primary focus of the study, and while we achieved greater diversity than most previous studies, more work is needed to find ways to effectively reach diverse communities. In addition, only self-report data were collected and likely based on participants' perceptions and interpretations rather than behaviors; such measures do not replace objective indicators of the variables under study.
49