MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281640341 · doi:10.1080/09540261.2022.2075256

Barriers in care pathways and unmet mental health needs in LGBTIQ + communities

2022· review· en· W4281640341 on OpenAlexaff
Giada Silveri, Simone Schimmenti, Eleonora Prina, Lorenzo Gios, Massimo Mirandola, Manlio Converti, Andrea Fiorillo, Federica Pinna, Antonio Ventriglio, Gian Maria Galeazzi, Nigel Sherriff, Laetitia Zeeman, Francesco Amaddeo, Giulia Somaini, Pasquale Paribello, Daniela Giallanella, Costanza Gaggiano, Mattia Marchi, Elisa Arcolin, Gianluca Fiore, Nicola Luigi Bragazzi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Review of Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthTransgenderPsychological interventionPsycINFOLesbianHealth careMedicinePopulationMEDLINEPsychologyNursingPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer people and minority gender identities and sexualities (LGBTIQ+) are often stigmatized and experience discrimination in health care settings, leading to poorer mental health outcomes and unmet needs compared to heterosexual and cisgendered peers. It is thus imperative that mental health providers consider and address structural challenges in order to reduce mental health inequalities of this population. This narrative review assessed the barriers that may prevent access to care and the pathways for care in LGBTIQ + communities. PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase, and Scopus were searched for papers published between December 2021 and February 2022. A total of 107 papers were included with studies reflecting five themes: (1) Unmet mental health needs; (2) Young people; (3) Substance abuse and addiction; (4) Barriers and pathways to care; and (5) Interventions. Findings demonstrate that LGBTIQ + people experience stigmatization and higher rates of substance misuse and mental ill health, which may lead to barriers in accessing health care services, and fewer tailored interventions being provided. These findings have implications for policy, health care screening, and how specialist services are structured. Substantial gaps in the evidence-base exist, and future research should examine how mental health care providers can challenge social issues that maintain discriminatory and stigmatizing practices, and support LGBTIQ + individuals to sustain their resilience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations46
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Review of PsychiatrySame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207