Meaningful support for lesbian and bisexual women navigating reproductive cancer care in Canada: An exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health inequities for sexual minorities are well documented, but there is a gap in nursing research addressing the specific experiences faced by lesbian and bisexual women with reproductive cancers. This critical feminist study explored interactions between sexual minority women with reproductive cancers and their health care providers and how these interactions enable and create barriers to meaningful support. Purposeful convenience sampling was used to recruit lesbian and bisexual reproductive cancer survivors from Ontario, Canada and providers who have cared for this population. Five lesbian and one bisexual woman who were reproductive cancer survivors participated, as well as one registered nurse who was not a survivor but who has cared for sexual minority women with reproductive cancers. Face-to-face interviews were conducted and conventional content analysis was used to analyze the data. The authors report on findings related to meaningful support, interactions with providers and organisational environments. Narratives showed that an understanding of gender norms influenced women’s perceptions of supportive and inclusive care, such as the acknowledgment of social supports and barriers to supportive care that included disclosure of sexual orientation. There are implications for nursing education and policy change to enhance inclusive interactions and environments for diverse sexual minority women with reproductive cancers.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".