MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984158064 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckz185.466

Well Being of Older Gay and Bisexual Men and Women in England: Results of a Cross-Sectional Population Based Study

2019· article· en· W2984158064 on OpenAlexaff
Igor Grabovac, Lee Smith, Daragh T. McDermott, Siniša Štefanac, Lin Yang, Nicola Veronese, Sarah E. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsCanadian Red Cross SocietyUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality of life (healthcare)LonelinessSexual orientationCross-sectional studyLife satisfactionLesbianOddsPopulationDemographyPsychologyCenter for Epidemiologic Studies Depression ScaleDepression (economics)MedicineClinical psychologyOdds ratioGerontologyLogistic regressionDepressive symptomsPsychiatrySocial psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) older people are an under-represented population in research, with limited research noting more depression, loneliness, rejection, overall poorer health and well-being outcomes. Our study compared well-being, defined as quality of life (QOL), life satisfaction, sexual satisfaction, and depression, among LGB people with their heterosexual peers’. Methods Cross-sectional data from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, collected 2012-2013. A total of 5691 participants were included in the analysis, with 326 (5.7%) self-identifying as LGB. We used CASP-19 questionnaire for well-being; the Satisfaction with Life Scale for life satisfaction; and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale for depressive symptoms. The question “During the past three months, how satisfied have you been with your overall sex life?” was used for sexual satisfaction. T-test and chi-square tests were used for differences in sociodemographic characteristics between LGB and heterosexual participants. Regression models were used to test associations between sexual orientation and well-being outcomes. Results LGB participants reported significantly lower mean quality of life and life satisfaction, and had significantly lower odds of reporting satisfaction with their overall sex life and higher odds of reporting depressive symptoms in unadjusted models. After adjustment for sociodemographic and health-related covariates, there remained significant differences between groups in mean QOL scores (B= -0.96, 95% [CI] -1.87 to -0.06) and odds of sexual satisfaction (OR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.82). Conclusions LGB older people report lower quality of life and lower sexual satisfaction than their heterosexual counterparts, possibly associated with experiencing lifelong social discrimination. Main message: Older lesbian, gay and bisexual people in England report significantly lower QOL and sexual satisfaction in comparison to heterosexual counterparts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207