A systematic review of the health and health care of rural sexual and gender minorities in the UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and people with a diversity of sexual and gender identities (LGBTIQ+) residing in rural contexts may face additional challenges to attaining wellbeing, yet a comprehensive understanding of these experiences is lacking. The purpose of the systematic review is to address this knowledge gap. The aims of the review are to progress understanding about rural LGBTIQ+ communities with regard to wellbeing, healthcare access and experience, and barriers and facilitators to health care. METHODS: Peer-reviewed literature was searched in PubMed, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, and PsychInfo databases, while grey literature was searched using Google Advanced Search. Documents produced between 2015 and 2020 in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and UK were eligible and reference lists were screened. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were adhered to. Relevant data were extracted and synthesized. The quality of the peer-reviewed literature and grey literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool and the Authority, Accuracy, Coverage, Objectivity, Date, Significance checklist, respectively. At each stage of the study selection process, a second author reviewed a sample of 10% of the articles and documents to ensure consistent application of the inclusion criteria. Consultation within the team was used to resolve any discrepancies encountered. RESULTS: The 297 unique peer-reviewed returned records were screened, with 69 full texts assessed for eligibility, resulting in the inclusion of 42 articles. The initial result of 2785 grey documents were similarly screened, resulting in the inclusion of 12 documents. Overall, the included literature was deemed to be of good quality. Synthesis of data resulted in the reporting of findings concerning mental, physical, and sexual wellbeing; healthcare access and experiences with care; and barriers and facilitators to health care for various communities in rural areas. The findings showed rural LGBTIQ+ communities shared many of the health concerns of non-rural LGBTIQ+ communities, as well as encountering similar issues and barriers to the receipt of high-quality appropriate care. However, the evidence also indicates an array of nuanced challenges for communities in rural areas such as a lack of available appropriate providers, and financial and practical barriers concerning the need to travel to obtain the services needed. The intersection of rurality and LGBTIQ+ identity was especially pronounced for rural LGBTIQ+ elders facing potential isolation in the context of declining mobility, service providers experiencing high demand and isolation from professional networks, and for LGBTIQ+ populations negotiating the complexities of disclosure in interactions with health professionals. The latter three findings in particular extend on the existing knowledge base. CONCLUSION: Investment is needed in the design, trialling, and evaluation of tailored models of care, which account for the specific challenges encountered in providing services to rural LGBTIQ+ communities. Such models, should also harness identified facilitators for rural LGBTIQ+ wellbeing, including the use of online technologies. Dedicated study is merited to inform policy and practice for aged care services in rural areas. Further, the development and implementation of strategies to support rural health service providers is warranted.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,080 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,007 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,024 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».