Community and sociodemographic factors associated with disclosure of sexual orientation and comfort in discussing care needs in primary care: Results from the OutLook Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and diverse sexual orientation minorities are disproportionately represented in the prevalence of adverse health conditions, even in Canada, suggested as one of the more progressive countries when it comes to social acceptance and human rights protections. This highlights the inclusion of sexual orientation identity as a point of consideration when providers interact with patients and to consider facilitating sexual orientation identity disclosure when accessing health care. This study explored factors associated with different facets of sexual orientation disclosure to primary care providers. A cross-sectional survey of sexual orientation minority participants, 16 years or older, living, working, or residing in Waterloo Region was distributed ( n = 437). Modified Poisson regression methods modelled (a) comfort sharing sexual orientation with their regular primary care provider (RPCP), (b) disclosure of sexual orientation to their RPCP, and (c) talking to their RPCP about health issues related to their sexual orientation. Increasing outness within one’s social network was consistently significant across all three outcomes of comfort, disclosure, and talking about health issues related to sexual orientation. Self-esteem was also identified as salient in comfort and when talking to providers. The authors also observed significant associations between sexual orientation identity and relationship status variables. Findings highlight important factors to consider in discussing and disclosing sexual orientation identity and associated health issues with health care providers. Implications for practice include training new health care providers and providing opportunities for continued education for established providers to ensure appropriate care is provided based on sexual orientation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".