“Automatic assumption of your gender, sexuality and sexual practices is also discrimination”: Exploring sexual healthcare experiences and recommendations among sexually and gender diverse persons in Arctic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual and mental health disparities are reported in Arctic Canada as in other Arctic regions that experience shared challenges of insufficient healthcare resources, limited transportation, and a scarcity of healthcare research. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer persons (LGBTQ+) report sexual and mental health disparities in comparison with their heterosexual and cisgender counterparts, and these disparities may be exacerbated in rural versus urban settings. Yet limited research has explored sexual healthcare experiences among LGBTQ+ persons in the Arctic who are at the juncture of Arctic and LGBTQ+ health disparities. We conducted a qualitative study from May 2015 to October 2015 with LGBTQ+ persons in the Northwest Territories, Canada that involved in-depth individual interviews with LGBTQ+ youth (n = 16), LGBTQ+ adults (n = 21), and key informants (e.g. coaches, teachers, nurses, social workers, and healthcare providers) (n = 14). We conducted thematic analysis, a theoretically flexible approach that integrates deductive and inductive approaches, to identify and map themes in the data. Findings reveal geographical, social, and healthcare factors converge to shape healthcare access. Specifically, the interplay between heterosexism and cisnormativity, intersectional forms of stigma, and place limited LGBTQ+ persons' sexual healthcare access and produced negative experiences in sexual healthcare. Limited healthcare facilities in small communities resulted in confidentiality concerns. Heteronormativity and cisnormativity constrained the ability to access appropriate sexual healthcare. LGBTQ+ persons experienced LGBTQ+, HIV, and sexually transmitted infections stigma in healthcare. Participants also discussed healthcare provider recommendations to better serve LGBTQ+ persons: non-judgment, knowledge of LGBTQ+ health issues, and gender inclusivity. Findings can inform multi-level strategies to reduce intersecting stigma in communities and healthcare, transform healthcare education, and build LGBTQ+ persons' healthcare navigation skills.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".