Regular health care use by lesbians: a path analysis of predictive factors
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lesbians have more health risks than other women but access preventive medical care less frequently. OBJECTIVE: To test the influence of (i) provider inquiry about sexual orientation, (ii) perceived provider gay-positivity and (iii) patient disclosure of sexual orientation on regular health care use in a sample of Canadian lesbians. METHODS: A path analysis using community survey data from 489 lesbian respondents. RESULTS: 78.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 74.7-82.0] of women reported regular health service use; 75.8% (95% CI: 72.2-79.8) of women had disclosed their sexual orientation to their provider; and 24.4% (95% CI: 20.6-28.2) of women had been asked about their sexual orientation by their provider. Of those women whose physicians had inquired about their sexual orientation, 100% (95% CI: 97.5-100.0) had disclosed. In the final path analysis, perceived provider gay-positivity and level of patient outness predicted disclosure, which, along with health status predicted regular health care use. All paths were significant at P < 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: Provider-related factors including perceived gay-positivity and inquiry about sexual orientation are strongly associated with disclosure of sexual orientation. Disclosure is associated with regular health care use. Minor changes to practice could improve access to health services for lesbians.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it