Queer caregiving with older adults: A scoping review of the lived experiences of LGBTQ+ family and friend caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing LGBTQ+ population is accompanied by an increasing number of LGBTQ+ caregivers of older adults. However, the experiences and perspectives of LGBTQ+ caregivers remain poorly understood within health and social systems. Caregiving research has traditionally focused on heterosexual caregivers, often overlooking the distinct experiences of LGBTQ+ caregivers. This scoping review compiles literature that highlights the unique challenges, needs, and support systems required by LGBTQ+ caregivers. We used Arksey & O'Malley's five-step iterative scoping review methodology and identified relevant studies through a search of three electronic databases conducted on May 11, 2023. A total of 57 items were included in this review: 13 quantitative studies, 22 qualitative studies, 6 mixed methods studies, 2 scoping reviews, 1 literature review, and 13 grey literature records. Through a thematic synthesis, we identified five major themes: LGBTQ+ caregivers are highly active in providing informal care; queer caregiving has unique complexities; LGBTQ+ caregivers want to feel recognized and understood; LGBTQ+ caregivers are at high risk of becoming overwhelmed; and challenges navigating heteronormative health systems. This scoping review highlights the distinct experiences of LGBTQ+ family and friend caregivers and their specific support needs within their caregiving role. Findings from this review highlight the importance of healthcare professionals receiving comprehensive LGBTQ+ focused education to better understand and support LGBTQ+ caregivers. We emphasize the need of LGBTQ+ caregivers to feel recognized and understood within health systems, highlighting that this population of caregivers is at higher risk of becoming overwhelmed. Further research is needed to address the gaps in knowledge, provide effective interventions, and draft policies to support LGBTQ+ caregivers. • Navigating heteronormative healthcare systems has challenges for LGBTQ+ caregivers. • Microaggressions, biases, and history of mistreatment hinder disclosure and trust. • Inclusive communication and LGBTQ+ cultural competence training is crucial. • LGBTQ+ culturally competent care can bridge disparities. • Education, systemic change, and empathetic healthcare approaches are essential.
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 | 0.012 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".