Examining the Interplay of Psychological Well-Being, Health, and Aging in Older LGBT Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals face mental health challenges and psychological issues due to societal pressures. Discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity continues to affect the well-being of older LGBT adults, despite progress in acceptance and equality. This systematic review examines the health and mental health challenges faced by older LGBT adults. Methods We conducted a search of four electronic databases to retrieve primary studies published between 2000 and 2022. Fifteen articles were included in the systematic review. Results Our findings reveal that older LGBT adults face victimization and are often forced to conceal their identity. Differential victimization based on sexual identity leads to severe outcomes, such as stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, and loneliness. Discrimination against older LGBT adults contributes to an unhealthy life, disability, depression, and physical health problems. Conclusions Tailored interventions, including sensitizing the public and changing perceptions, should address the health challenges and psychological issues faced by older LGBT adults in their lifetime. Discrimination against older LGBT adults must be addressed to ensure they receive the appropriate care and support they require. Policy Implications This systematic review highlights the need for targeted interventions and policies to support the mental health and well-being of older LGBT adults. Such policies should aim to sensitize society, challenge discrimination, and address the unique challenges faced by older LGBT adults.
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 | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".