“A Double-Edged Sword”: Health Professionals’ Perspectives on the Health and Social Impacts of Gay Dating Apps on Young Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Queer Men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay dating apps (GDAs) play a central role in partner-seeking for many men. The purpose of the present study was to explore health professionals' perceptions of the effects of GDAs on young gay, bisexual, trans and queer men (YGBTQM). Because health professionals have access to privileged information about YGBTQM's experiences with GDAs, they can provide unique insights about their impacts on YGBTQM health and well-being. This study drew on 28 in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews with health professionals who provide services to YGBTQM in British Columbia, Canada. Using thematic content analysis, we identified three themes showing participants' conflicting perceptions of GDAs' impacts on YGBTQM: (1) the accessibility of sex on GDAs as either transactional or pleasurable; (2) the building of community and increased safety, which at times corresponds with increased exposure to rejection and discrimination; and (3) a perceived escalation in sexual and drug-related risk-taking in conjunction with the opportunity for education, prevention and intervention. In response to the often polarizing literature on GDAs, this study is among the first to contribute empirical evidence into the perceptions of health professionals working with YGBTQM who use GDAs, while simultaneously providing actionable insights and strategies to help identify potential harms and maximize benefits.
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 | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".