Exploring Health Care Access for Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men Living in Middlesex County, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Published research suggests gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GB-MSM) present in health care with additional, distinct psychosocial and sexual health concerns compared to heterosexual men, emphasizing the importance of access to health care for these groups.\nThis exploratory thesis used data from the online survey (n=202) of the Health in Middlesex Men Matters (HiMMM) Project – a community-based study examining health care access for GB-MSM living in Middlesex County, Ontario. For each manuscript, blockwise modified Poisson regression models were fit sequentially with predisposing, enabling, and need variables, as theorized by the Behavioral Model of Health Services Use.\nThe first manuscript identified factors associated with access to a primary care provider (PCP), identifying subgroups with which to direct health care promotion efforts centred upon access. Older age, student status, marital and relationship status, social support (from a significant other and from GLBT - gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender - communities), and self-perceived general health were crudely associated with having a PCP and were variably significantly associated with the outcome during the modelling process with additional variables.\nThe second examined factors associated with sexual orientation disclosure and communication with providers about GB-MSM health issues. Marital/relationship status, experiences of homophobia, and assessment of provider’s communication were associated with having a PCP know respondents’ sexual orientation, crudely and in the modelling process with other variables. Internalized homonegativity, experiences of homophobia, provider communication, and prior negative experiences with a PCP were associated with talking to a PCP about GB-MSM health issues.\nThe third examined demographic, socio-behavioural, and community-relevant factors associated with mental health service utilization in the past 12 months for local GB-MSM. Access to a PCP, childhood versus current religiosity or spirituality, self-perceived mental health, and internalized homonegativity were associated with the outcome, crudely, and in the blockwise modelling process with other variables.\nThe fourth manuscript investigated demographic and socio-behavioural factors associated with not accessing HIV testing services, and explored descriptive reasons for this, discussing implications for HIV testing promotion. Factors significantly associated with being untested included social connection to GLBT communities, current versus childhood religiosity/spirituality levels, education, and employment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".