Culturally Competent Care of LGBT Patients: The NP Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nurse practitioners (NPs) who are culturally competent can enrich patient care, reduce health disparities, and improve health outcomes. Research that examines NP practice as it relates to the culturally competent care of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) patients has been lacking in the literature. To address this gap, an exploratory qualitative descriptive design was used to explore NP experiences with LGBT patients. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews with 22 NPs. Inductive analysis was used to identify, analyze, and report themes within the data. Key findings were that LGBT patients were generally not seen as a distinct cultural group with specific health needs and that NP participants were unclear about the definition or principles of cultural competence as it relates to LGBT persons. Most NPs were not using a model of cultural competence to guide their practice. Instead, they utilized strategies that primarily revolved around the development and maintenance of the therapeutic nurse-patient relationship. These findings have implications for patient outcomes, as well as education, practice, and research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".