Relationship between sociodemographics, healthcare providers’ competence and healthcare access among two-spirit, gay, bisexual, queer and other men who have sex with men in Manitoba: results from a community-based cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about barriers to healthcare access for two-spirit, gay, bisexual and queer (2SGBQ+) men in Manitoba. DESIGN: Data were drawn from a community-based, cross-sectional survey designed to examine health and healthcare access among 2SGBQ+ men. SETTING: Community-based cross-sectional study in Manitoba, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Community-based sample of 368 2SGBQ+ men. OUTCOMES: Logistic regression analyses assessed the relationship between sociodemographics, healthcare discrimination, perceived healthcare providers' 2SGBQ+ competence/knowledge and two indicators of healthcare access (analytic outcome variables): (1) having a regular healthcare provider and (2) having had a healthcare visit in the past 12 months. RESULTS: In multivariate analyses, living in Brandon (adjusted OR (AOR)=0.08, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.22), small cities (AOR=0.20, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.98) and smaller towns (AOR=0.26, 95% CI 0.08 o 0.81) in Manitoba (compared with living in Winnipeg), as well as having a healthcare provider with poor (AOR=0.19, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.90) or very poor competence/knowledge (AOR=0.03, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25) of 2SGBQ+ men's issues (compared with very good competence) was associated with lower odds of having a regular healthcare provider. Living in Brandon (AOR=0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.17) and smaller towns (AOR=0.25, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90) in Manitoba (compared with living in Winnipeg) was associated with lower odds of having a healthcare visit in the past 12 months, while identifying as a gay man compared with bisexual (AOR=12.57, 95% CI 1.88 to 83.97) was associated with higher odds of having a healthcare visit in the past 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: These findings underscore the importance of reducing the gap between the healthcare access of rural and urban 2SGBQ+ men, improving healthcare providers' cultural competence and addressing their lack of knowledge of 2SGBQ+ men's issues.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".