“The Message Is You Don’t Exist”: Exploring Lived Experiences of Rural Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer/Questioning (LGBTQ) People Utilizing Health care Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) people experience significant health inequities with well-documented negative health impacts due to their status as a sexual and gender minority population. Insensitive or discriminatory attitudes toward LGBTQ people within the health care system have negatively impacted access to health services and the overall physical and mental health and well-being of this at risk population. Few studies of LGBTQ populations in rural areas have been conducted, with even fewer in the Canadian context. Rural areas often create greater visibility for LGBTQ persons, contain fewer supports and alternatives in the face of discrimination, and are often are less accepting of LGBTQ populations due to increased stigma and social isolation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to examine the lived experiences of LGBTQ people utilizing health care services in rural Manitoba. METHOD: 12 individuals who self-identified as LGBTQ who had accessed health care services in Manitoba were recruited. Using qualitative methodology, interviews were recorded and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Analysis revealed themes including stigma and discrimination, judgments and assumptions, gender identities, lack of knowledge, limited access/systemic barriers, rural considerations, and recommendations for changes to address the gaps in health care services and barriers to access. CONCLUSIONS: This study of the LGBTQ community provides an expression of their opinions and experiences, but also provides a voice to this underserved population. The findings of this study provide a better understanding of the unique health needs and experiences of LGBTQ people in rural Manitoba, creating opportunities for meaningful change in health care delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".