Informing inclusive and affirmative hospital pharmacy services for 2SLGBTQ+ patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (2SLGBTQ+) people disproportionally experience health disparities, and hospital pharmacists, given their accessibility and expertise in medication management, are ideally positioned to provide care to this vulnerable population. This study investigated the barriers and facilitators faced by hospital pharmacists when providing care to 2SLGBTQ+ patients, with the goal of informing enhancement of quality care provided to these patients. METHODS: A mixed-methods triangulation design was utilized, comprising an online survey and qualitative interviews with Canadian hospital pharmacists. The survey used the lens of systemic oppression as a framework and assessed pharmacists' perceptions and knowledge. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, and interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 129 individuals participated in the survey, and 15 participants were interviewed. Eleven themes were identified, and findings revealed a complex web of individual, interpersonal, and systemic barriers and facilitators. Pharmacists expressed a lack of proficiency and confidence in discussing 2SLGBTQ+ health topics, further compounded by an apprehension to engage and a fear of causing harm. Pharmacists desired support from their leadership teams and organizations in the form of access to resources, time to engage in training, and workplace environments that encourage discussions about 2SLGBTQ+ health. CONCLUSION: Hospital pharmacists in Canada are willing to provide inclusive care to 2SLGBTQ+ patients but face significant barriers. These findings highlight the need for comprehensive education, supportive workplace cultures, and accessible resources to address health disparities and improve care for 2SLGBTQ+ individuals.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".