Health policies and organization of services for the LGBT population: Literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Historically, the fight for the right to health was one of the paths taken by many LGBT collectives, seeking recognition of their citizenship. However, the policy guidelines have been aligned with the Social determinants in health. In this article, we identify the scope of public health policies for the LGBT population in countries of the European continent, North America and Oceania in order to identify differences and similarities about the content and organization of care services and programs. Methods Literature review in scientific databases Science Direct, Web of Science e BVS. 24 articles constituted the corpus. This review followed the recommendations of PRISMA. The instrument proposed by the CASP was used to assess the methodological quality of the selected studies. Results Health systems in the countries analyzed, with the exception of the USA, although they have ideological and structural distinctions, were inspired by the Welfare State, broad social protection systems with which they reorganized societies into more egalitarian arrangements in correspondence to the social structure and dynamics of each country. The results reveal different scopes of health policies that influence the process of organizing actions and services in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK. The productions analyzed focused on the provision of specific health services such as population care in cases of HIV, cases of cancer, transgender health care during the transition process, mental health care, health promotion focusing on body weight, smoking cessation program and LGBT population aging Project. Conclusions Greater integration between research is proposed, with evaluations going beyond structural aspects, encompassing the comparison of care models and problematizing the qualification of care provided to the LGBT population, to promote services that are more inclusive and equally accessible to all. Key messages Contributing to the updating of knowledge, with information that can be implemented in the health care practice of the LGBT population. Give visibility to advances and vulnerabilities in different societal contexts, and contribute to policies and programs and the integration of human rights into public health programming.
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 | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".