Cost‐related avoidance of oral health service utilization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study estimates the frequency of cost-related oral health service avoidance (CROHSA) among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals in Canada relative to heterosexual persons. METHODS: Heterosexual and sexual minority individuals in Canada were compared using the national probability-based Canadian Community Health Survey 2017-2018. Logistic regression was used to quantify associations between LGB status and CROHSA. Mediators were tested following Andersen's behavioral model of health service utilization and included partnership status, oral health status, presence of dental pain, educational attainment, insurance status, smoking status, general health status, and personal income. RESULTS: From our sample of 103,216 individuals, 34.8% of LGB individuals reported avoiding oral health care due to cost compared to 22.7% of heterosexual persons. Disparities were most pronounced among bisexual individuals (odds ratio [OR] 2.29 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42, 3.49). Disparities persisted despite adjustment for confounding using age, gender/sex, and ethnicity (OR 2.23 95% CI 1.42, 3.49). Disparities were fully mediated by eight hypothesized mediators namely, educational attainment, smoking status, partnership status, income, insurance status, oral health status, and the presence of dental pain (OR 1.69 95% CI 0.94, 3.03). In contrast, lesbian/gay individuals did not have elevated odds of experiencing CROHSA compared to heterosexual individuals (OR 1.27 95% CI 0.84, 1.92). CONCLUSION: CROHSA is elevated for bisexual individuals relative to heterosexual individuals. Targeted interventions should be explored to improve oral healthcare access among this population. Future research should assess the role of minority stress and social safety on oral health inequities among sexual minority groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".