Minority Stress and Safer Sex Practices Among Sexual Minority Women in Toronto, Canada: Results from a Cross-Sectional Internet-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Sexual stigma is a chronic stressor that enhances vulnerability to mental health disparities among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer people. Sexual stigma has also been associated with reduced uptake of safer sex practices, such as condom use, among gay and bisexual men. Scant research has examined the relationship between sexual stigma and safer sex practices among sexual minority women (SMW), including lesbian, bisexual, and queer women. METHODS: We explored associations between sexual stigma and safer sex practices among SMW. We also tested the interaction between sexual stigma, social support, and resilient coping in this relationship. A cross-sectional internet-based survey was administered to SMW in Toronto, Canada. RESULTS: Among 388 participants with complete measurement data, simple linear regression indicated both perceived and enacted sexual stigma were positively associated with uptake of safer sex practices. In multivariable analyses, significant interactions were found between perceived sexual stigma and resilient coping, and between enacted sexual stigma and social support. At low levels of resilient coping, higher levels of perceived sexual stigma were associated with fewer safer sex practices, while at high levels of resilient coping the relationship was reversed. At low levels of social support, higher levels of enacted sexual stigma were associated with fewer safer sex practices, while at high levels of social support the relationship was reversed. CONCLUSIONS: These findings document complex relationships between sexual stigma dimensions, coping, social support, and safer sex practices. Understanding the role these variables play in uptake of safer sex practices can inform sexual health interventions tailored for SMW.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".