MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4239649045 · doi:10.1097/ans.0000000000000270

Guest Editorial

2019· editorial· en· W4239649045 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueAdvances in Nursing Science · 2019
Typeeditorial
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésTransgenderLesbianGreenwichHarassmentQueerSexual minorityCriminologyNeglectHomosexualityPsychologyGender studiesLawPolitical scienceSociologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT STONEWALL This issue of ANS represents a turning point to remedy the neglect of sexual and gender minority groups—cultures in their own right. The issue includes 2 articles addressing nursing and health care needs of these groups. In this Guest Editorial, Drs Dorsen and Caceres call for an end of the long-standing neglect of and discrimination against people who identify as LGBTQ+. The name “Stonewall” may not be familiar to you. Or, perhaps, you know that it is somehow related to the struggle for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBTQ+) equality but are not sure how. If you are like most nurses, you probably don't know why this event, celebrating its 50th anniversary this month, is considered one of the most significant moments in LGBTQ+ history. It is time for that to change. It is time for that to change. The Stonewall Riots took place in New York City in June 1969 after a routine raid of the Stonewall Inn, a bar in Greenwich Village frequented by gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, drag queens, street youth, and transgender persons. Raids at that time were common practice—it was illegal to be LGBTQ+ or to serve liquor to LGBTQ+ persons. Homosexuality was considered a mental illness and was listed as such in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). The FBI kept track of suspected LGBTQ+ persons, and exposure could lead to harassment, arrest, loss of employment, and loss of family. Known LGBTQ+ gathering spots were frequent targets of law enforcement—police arrested patrons and employees, and newspapers often printed the names of those arrested the following day. But in the early morning hours of June 28, 1969, the LGBTQ+ community at the Stonewall Inn, emboldened by the civil rights struggles of Black Americans, women, and other oppressed groups, fought back against harassment and injustice. Six days of riots followed, and the LGBTQ+ equality movement was born.1 We don't routinely teach the history of civil rights struggles in nursing, but we should. As you will read in this special edition of Advances in Nursing Science, focusing on culture, race, and discrimination, current and historical experiences of stigma and marginalization deeply affect all aspects of health, from access to and utilization of care to risk and risk behaviors to disease patterns and outcomes. This is certainly true for LGBTQ+ populations. Research suggests that the LGBTQ+ community has inequities in mental health, substance use, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and certain cancers and experience significant social disadvantage, with higher rates of poverty, un- and underemployment, and housing instability than the general population.2 These disparities appear to be consistent across countries and social contexts. Certain subgroups of the LGBTQ+ community, including LGBTQ+ people of color, LGBTQ+ people with disabilities, and LGBTQ+ immigrants and refugees, experience even greater inequities. Perceived and enacted stigma are to blame, including that of nurses who may lack basic knowledge about LGBTQ+ culture and health needs and may harbor implicit or explicit bias.3 To fight injustice, we need to educate ourselves, have hard conversations about our own privilege and power, and consider how our actions and attitudes may contribute to both lessening and perpetuating health inequities. Although the Stonewall Riots occurred 50 years ago, there is still work to be done. It is illegal to be LGBTQ+ in approximately 70 countries; in over a dozen, being LGBTQ+ is a crime punishable by death.4 And even in relatively socially progressive countries, including much of Europe, Canada, and the United States, LGBTQ+ people continue to face significant discrimination in areas such as housing, employment, and health care. We are only beginning to understand how social inequity influence the health of LGBTQ+ populations and their encounters with health care professionals. As nurses who pride ourselves on expertly caring for diverse populations, we need to hold each other accountable to learn the history of struggle and resilience of marginalized groups and to thoughtfully consider how stigma and discrimination continue to impact the health and well-being of many of us. As the largest health care profession in the world, nurses are in the perfect position to advocate for LGBTQ+ persons and lessen health inequities in this vulnerable population. But first we need to talk. We need to talk about how LGBTQ+ marginalization impacts the communities we serve and members of our profession. We need to talk about Stonewall. —Caroline Dorsen, PhD, RN, FNP-BC Assistant Professor NYU Meyers College of Nursing New York Nursing Chair GLMA: Health Professionals Advancing LGBT Equality —Billy Caceres, PhD, RN, AGPCNP-BC Postdoctoral Research Fellow Columbia University School of Nursing and the Program for the Study of LGBT Health, New York City, New York

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Éditorial · Signal consensuel: Éditorial
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,225
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,002
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,438
Écart entre enseignants0,430 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreÉditorial

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAdvances in Nursing ScienceMême sujetLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyTravaux en français237 207