MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015124417 · doi:10.1186/s12939-020-1151-7

A nationwide cross-sectional study of 15,611 lesbian, gay and bisexual people in China: disclosure of sexual orientation and experiences of negative treatment in health care

2020· article· en· W3015124417 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Yiu Tung Suen, Randolph C. H. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Equity in Health · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUnited Nations Development Programme
KeywordsLesbianSexual orientationSnowball samplingHealth carePsychologyGeneral partnershipSexual minorityFamily medicineMedicineSocial psychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) people often face individual- and system-level barriers in health care. However, LGB people's experiences of health care in non-European and non-American settings have been scarcely studied. In China, while it has been estimated that there are at least 70 million gender and sexual minorities, there has been no larger-scale study on LGB people's experiences of health care beyond a focus on gay men and HIV. This study is the first larger-scale quantitative study to investigate LGB people's experiences of health care in China, where non-heterosexuality is officially silenced and the needs of non-heterosexual people are largely ignored by service providers. METHODS: An online survey was designed in joint partnership by academic, community groups and the United Nations Development Programme. Targeted and snowball sampling was adopted for participant recruitment. Such unique cross-sectoral partnership made this research possible in the authoritarian state of China where data collection on LGB people is extremely rare. For the analysis in this paper, a sample of 15,611 Chinese LGB people were included. Frequency and descriptive statistics were conducted to describe the LGB respondents' demographic characteristics and their experiences in health care settings. Chi-square tests were conducted to test how experiences vary across LGB people with different demographic characteristics. RESULTS: More than three quarters of the respondents said they would be willing to disclose to their medical care providers their sexual orientation if asked. However, only 5.7% of the respondents said that medical care providers ever asked them about their sexual orientation. About 8.0% of the LGB people surveyed reported having experienced negative treatment in medical care settings. Six percent (5.7%) of the Chinese LGB people said in accessing mental health care services, they were recommended, coaxed into, or provided conversion therapy for sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. CONCLUSIONS: There is a strong need to enhance LGB cultural competence among health care providers. Policymakers in China should also formulate laws, policies, regulations, clearly articulated codes of conduct, and transparent procedures and practices to ensure non-discrimination of LGB people in the health care system, with a particular focus on banning conversion therapy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations53
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Equity in HealthSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207