Dificuldades no acesso aos serviços de saúde por lésbicas, gays, bissexuais e transgêneros
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetivo: analisar as dificuldades de acesso aos serviços de saúde pelas pessoas LGBT. Método: trata-se de um estudo bibliográfico, descritivo, do tipo revisão integrativa da literatura. Realizou-se a busca em janeiro de 2019 nas bases de dados: MEDLINE, Web of Science e SCOPUS. Pesquisaram-se artigos com delimitação atemporal. Avaliaram-se os artigos segundo o critério AHRQ e sua elegibilidade pelo CASP. Analisaram-se os dados no software IRAMUTEQ a partir da Classificação Hierárquica Descendente. Resultados: destaca-se que a amostra final foi composta por dez artigos, entre eles, 70% encontraram-se disponíveis na SCOPUS; 10%, na Web of Science e 20%, na MEDLINE. Notou-se que, referente à nacionalidade dos estudos, 10% foram da Alemanha; 10%, do Brasil; 10%, da Argentina; 20%, do Canadá; 20%, da África do Sul e 30%, dos Estados Unidos da América. Verificou-se que os anos de publicação dos estudos foram entre 2013 e 2018. Conclusão: evidencia-se que o acesso aos serviços de saúde pela população LGBT é permeado por constrangimentos e preconceitos. Ressalta-se que a exclusão, desamparo, omissão e indiferença ao acesso são sentimentos expressados por este público, mesmo existindo políticas públicas específicas. Descritores: Serviços de Saúde; Minorias Sexuais e de Gênero; Acesso aos Serviços de Saúde; Enfermagem; Vulnerabilidade em Saúde; Política Pública.AbstractObjective: to analyze the difficulties of access to health services by LGBT people. Method: this is a descriptive bibliographic study of the integrative literature review type. The search was performed in January 2019 in the databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and SCOPUS. We searched for articles with timeless delimitation. The articles were evaluated according to the AHRQ criteria and their eligibility by CASP. Data was analyzed in the IRAMUTEQ software from the Descending Hierarchical Classification. Results: it is noteworthy that the final sample consisted of ten articles, among them, 70% were available at SCOPUS; 10% on Web of Science and 20% on MEDLINE. Regarding the nationality of the studies, 10% were from Germany; 10% from Brazil; 10% from Argentina; 20% from Canada; 20% from South Africa and 30% from the United States of America. It was found that the years of publication of the studies were between 2013 and 2018. Conclusion: it is evident that access to health services by the LGBT population is permeated by constraints and prejudices. It is emphasized that exclusion, helplessness, omission and indifference to access are feelings expressed by this public, even though there are specific public policies. Descriptors: Health Services; Sexual and Gender Minorities; Health Services Accessibility; Nursing; Health Vulnerability; Public Policy.ResumenObjetivo: analizar las dificultades de acceso a los servicios de salud por parte de las personas LGBT. Método: este es un estudio bibliográfico descriptivo del tipo revisión integradora de literatura. La búsqueda se realizó en enero de 2019 en las bases de datos MEDLINE, Web of Science y SCOPUS. Buscamos artículos con delimitación atemporal. Los artículos fueron evaluados de acuerdo con los criterios AHRQ y su elegibilidad por CASP. Los datos se analizaron en el software IRAMUTEQ de la Clasificación Jerárquica Descendente. Resultados: cabe destacar que la muestra final consistió en 10 artículos, entre ellos, 70% estaban disponibles en SCOPUS, 10% en Web of Science y 20% en Medline. Con respecto a la nacionalidad de los estudios, el 10% provino de Alemania, el 10% de Brasil, el 10% de Argentina, el 20% de Canadá, el 20% de Sudáfrica y el 30% de los Estados Unidos de América. Se descubrió que los años de publicación de los estudios fueron entre 2013 y 2018. Conclusión: es evidente que el acceso a los servicios de salud por parte de la población LGBT está impregnado de restricciones y prejuicios. Es de destacar que la exclusión, la impotencia, la omisión y la indiferencia al acceso son sentimientos expresados por este público, a pesar de que existen políticas públicas específicas. Descriptores: Servicios de Salud; Minorías Sexuales y de Género; Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud; Enfermería; Vulnerabilidad en Salud; Política Pública.
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 | 0.014 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".