MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396703789 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v16n6p1

LGBTQ+ Stigma and Health Effects: A Systematic Review of the Global Literature

2024· review· en· W4396703789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hailey Maltempi, Yeon Jung Yu, Sean Bruna

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)Social stigmaSystematic reviewPsychologyMEDLINEMedicinePsychiatryPolitical scienceFamily medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review examines the global literature on LGBTQ+ stigma and health. Indeed, the LGBTQ+ community has experienced a poignant history of stigma, resulting in adverse health consequences. The current review synthesizes 46 articles conducted in multiple cultural settings. The focuses of the selected articles varied from mental health, physical health, suicide, drug and alcohol use, HIV stigma, and healthcare among LGBTQ+ communities. The selected studies similarly found that stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals have fueled adverse mental health and health behaviors. These risky behaviors included eating disorders, self-harm, suicide, substance use, unprotected sex, avoidance of healthcare appointments, perceived stigma, as well as healthcare provider (HCP) stigma. Racism in the LGBTQ+ community, racial/ethnic identities of LGBTQ+ individuals, and cultural rejection of homosexuality were also discussed. Future research should pay more attention to intersectional stigma and the social networks of LGBTQ+ communities.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0110.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.446 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→