Self-Perceived Discrimination in LGBT Population in Oral Health Services. Medellin, Colombia: A Qualitative Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We aim to understand the perception about discrimination within the LGBT population when accessing oral health services, from their perspective as well as that of the oral health professional. METHODS: A qualitative study from a phenomenological perspective was conducted by means of 37 in-depth interwiews (19 in health service providers and 18 in LGBT members). The script used in the interview included questions related to discrimination in social spaces, quality of life and its relationship with health, access to general and oral health care and proposals and strategies. Verbatim was transcripted and narrative content analysis was carried out for identifying meaning codes and after grouped through emergent categories. Atlas.Ti 6.0 software was used. RESULTS: Five categories within the participants’ discourses were identified: (1) Characteristics of LGBT population: This is a heterogeneous group (physical‚ social and cultural); (2) Quality of life (QOL), health related quality of life (HRQOL) and oral health related quality of life (OHRQOL): QOL is defined as the ability to enjoy opportunities in the human life process under equity conditions; HRQOL is related to an adequate access to health services‚ and OHRQOL as the appropriate state of the structures of the stomatognathic system; (3) Discrimination as a concept and experiences: People conceived discrimination as the act pejorative to someone because of a particular situation. Participants identified some types of discrimination in social spaces; (4) Accessibility to health services: Participants related individual and structural barriers when accessing to public health services; (5) Proposals and strategies: Interviewers suggested some educative strategies and social policies to reduce the endogenous and exogenous discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: The LGBT population is vulnerable to perceive experiences of discrimination and this situation causes a negative impact on their quality of life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".