Inclusive Practices toward LGBT Older Adults in Healthcare and Social Services: A Scoping Review of Quantitative and Qualitative Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: To determine what constitutes inclusive practices toward LGBT older adults in healthcare and social services and the supportive competencies of these practices. Methods: A comprehensive scoping review of the existing literature was conducted.Results: To be competent when addressing LGBT elder needs, personnel must have knowledge on LGBT realities, openness and be able to put certain skills into practice.Conclusions: Given the limited powers conferred on them by their respective positions, institutions must also play a role in encouraging the inclusion of LGBT older adults. Beyond the importance of taking into account the three dimensions of competence in staff training, changes must be made at all levels of the organizational structures.Clinical implications: Inclusive practices require 1) Educating personnel on the diversity of the life journeys of LGBT older adults; 2) Promoting relational and communication skills and open, friendly attitudes toward the diversity of LGBT identities; 3) Developing policies and procedures to create and maintain inclusive and safe environments for LGBT older adults.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".