Discourse / Discours - An Integrative Review of Nurse Attitudes Towards Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of literature suggests that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) persons have significant health disparities as compared to heterosexuals. Although the reasons for this are complex and multifactorial, one area of research has examined the real or perceived negative attitudes of health-care providers. This integrative review critically appraises and synthesizes data from 17 articles regarding nurses' attitudes towards LGBT patients. Every study analyzed showed some evidence of negative attitudes. However, the literature revealed major limitations, including a paucity of well-designed studies; a dearth of qualitative studies; inconsistent use of validated, reliable instruments; and a lack of measures examining attitudes towards lesbian, bisexual, and transgender persons. Increased knowledge in this area could lead to interventions to improve nurses' cultural competency; resource allocation to nursing research, education, and services related to LGBT health; and inclusion of more LGBT content in nursing curricula.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".