A Systematic Literature Review of the Impact of COVID-19 on the Health of LGBTQIA+ Older Adults: Identification of Risk and Protective Health Factors and Development of a Model of Health and Disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is important to understand the differential impact of COVID-19 on the health of older lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual, and people with other sexual orientations and forms of gender expression (LGBTQIA+). The objective of this study is to systematically review the impact of COVID-19 on LGBTQIA+ older adults' health including risk and protective factors. We reviewed a total of 167 records including LGBTQIA+ older adults published since 2019. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts and extracted information of 21 full-text records meeting inclusion criteria using COVIDENCE software. The results show that the negative health consequences are exacerbated by personal risk (e.g., perceived homo/transphobia and ageism in LGBTQIA+ communities) and environmental factors (e.g., heterosexism within health services). The negative impact seems to be reduced by personal protective (e.g., resilience, spirituality, and hobbies) and environmental factors (e.g., technology use to increase social participation and social rituals). In conclusion, the health of LGBTQIA+ older adults has been disproportionately affected during the pandemic associated to the latest coronavirus (COVID-19). The experiences of LGBTQIA+ older adults during the pandemic are integrated in a Model of Health and Disease for LGBTQIA+ older adults. Specific strategies to promote health and well-being in this community are provided.
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.
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 | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it