Health Professionals’ Attitudes Towards Lesbian and Gay Individuals, and Levels of Homophobia and Empathy: A Case of Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the attitudes, homophobia, and empathy levels of healthcare professionals toward Lesbian and Gay individuals. This descriptive and cross-sectional study’s population consisted of healthcare workers working in hospitals in Turkey between April 2022 and August 2022. Using snowball method, 678 healthcare professionals who consented to participate in the study were recruited for the study. The data were collected using a questionnaire developed by the researchers, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gays Scale (ATLGS), the Hudson and Ricketts Homophobia Scale (HRHS), and the Toronto Empathy Scale (TES).79.4% of the participants reported that caring for Lesbian and Gay (LG) individuals is no different from caring for heterosexual individuals. Low homophobia levels, work experience, and the existence of gay friends were identified as factors significantly influencing healthcare professionals’ positive attitudes toward LG. Healthcare professionals have partially positive attitudes about LG individuals and partially homophobic attitudes, and their empathetic abilities influence their attitudes toward them.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".