MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4394699980 · doi:10.2196/52250

Designing Implementation Strategies for the Inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Intersex, Queer, and Allied and Key Populations’ Content in Undergraduate Nursing Curricula in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: Protocol for a Multimethods Research Project

2024· article· en· W4394699980 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Celenkosini Thembelenkosini Nxumalo, Zamasomi Luvuno, Wilbroda Hlolisile Chiya, Silingene Joyce Ngcobo, Deshini Naidoo, Sophia Zamudio‐Haas, Orlando Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)MedicineHealth careNursingCurriculumMedical educationPsychologyPolitical sciencePedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, and allied (LGBTQIA+) individuals encounter challenges with access and engagement with health services. Studies have reported that LGBTQIA+ individuals experience stigma, discrimination, and health workers' microaggression when accessing health care. Compelling evidence suggests that the LGBTQIA+ community faces disproportionate rates of HIV infection, mental health disorders, substance abuse, and other noncommunicable diseases. The South African National Strategic Plan for HIV or AIDS, tuberculosis, and sexually transmitted infections, 2023-2028 recognizes the need for providing affirming LGBTQIA+ health care as part of the country's HIV or AIDS response strategy. However, current anecdotal evidence suggests paucity of LGBTQIA+ and key populations' health content in the undergraduate health science curricula in South Africa. Moreover, literature reveals a general lack of health worker training regarding the health needs of LGBTQIA+ persons and other key populations such as sex workers, people who inject drugs, and men who have sex with men. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the design of a project that aims at facilitating the inclusion of health content related to the LGBTQIA+ community and other key populations in the undergraduate nursing curricula of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. METHODS: A multimethods design encompassing collection of primary and secondary data using multiple qualitative designs and quantitative approaches will be used to generate evidence that will inform the co-design, testing, and scale-up of strategies to facilitate the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ and key populations content in the undergraduate nursing curricula in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Data will be collected using a combination of convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling techniques from LGBTQIA+ persons; academic staff; undergraduate nursing students; and other key populations. Primary data will be collected through individual in-depth interviews, focus groups discussions, and surveys guided by semistructured and structured data collection tools. Data collection and analysis will be an iterative process guided by the respective research design to be adopted. The continuous quality improvement process to be adopted during data gathering and analysis will ensure contextual relevance and sustainability of the resultant co-designed strategies that are to be scaled up as part of the overarching objective of this study. RESULTS: The proposed study is designed in response to recent contextual empirical evidence highlighting the multiplicity of health challenges experienced by LGBTQIA+ individuals and key populations in relation to health service delivery and access to health care. The potential findings of the study may be appropriate for contributing to the education of nurses as one of the means to ameliorate these problems. Data collection is anticipated to commence in June 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This research has potential implications for nursing education in South Africa and worldwide as it addresses up-to-date problems in the nursing discipline as it pertains to undergraduate students' preparedness for addressing the unique needs and challenges of the LGBTQIA+ community and other key populations. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/52250.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.077
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0770.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.844
GPT teacher head0.723
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→