Access to Healthcare and Unmet Needs in the Canadian Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who identify as a sexual minority, including those who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB), face barriers to healthcare as well as increased discrimination, stigmatization, and negative experiences during healthcare use. Further, few healthcare providers have education and training focused on the specific healthcare needs of individuals who are part of a sexual minority group. Given the limited research on Canadian healthcare access for sexual minorities, our purpose was to use data (n > 2,800) from the 2015–16 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) to investigate the perceptions of healthcare access for LGB and non-LGB Canadians. Although non-LGB and LGB participants reported comparable access to a regular care provider and were equally likely to have consulted with a general practitioner in the past 12 months, LGB respondents were more likely to have seen a specialist and reported more unmet health needs. Although we expected the linear effects of both race and sex to vary by LGB status, this effect only occurred in one model. Current results have implications for addressing health inequalities for sexual minorities, including poorer health outcomes and greater discrimination.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".