MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109019659 · doi:10.1300/j013v37n03_02

Health Care Utilization in a Sample of Canadian Lesbian Women: Predictors of Risk and Resilience

2003· article· en· W2109019659 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sherry Bergeron, Charlene Y. Senn

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianSnowball samplingHealth careSexual orientationPsychologyStructural equation modelingGerontologyMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study was designed to test an exploratory path model predicting health care utilization by lesbian women. Using structural equation modeling we examined the joint influence of internalized homophobia, feminism, comfort with health care providers (HCPs), education, and disclosure of sexual identity both in one's life and to one's HCP on health care utilization. Surveys were completed by 254 Canadian lesbian women (54% participation rate) recruited through snowball sampling and specialized media. The majority (95%) of women were White, 3% (n = 7) were women of colour, and the remaining six women did not indicate ethnicity. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 67 with a mean age of 38.85 years (SD = 9.12). In the final path model, higher education predicted greater feminism, more disclosure to HCPs, and better utilization of health services. Feminism predicted both decreased levels of internalized homophobia and increased disclosure across relationships. Being more open about one's sexual identity was related to increased disclosure to HCPs, which in turn, led to better health care utilization. Finally, the more comfortable women were with their HCP the more likely they were to seek preventive care. All paths were significant at p < .01. The path model offers insight into potential target areas for intervention with the goal of improving health care utilization in lesbian women.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations83
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207