Lived Experiences of Older LGBTQI+ Adults Aged 60 or Older: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing research on LGBTQI+ people's experiences, studies specifically focusing on those aged 60 and older remain scarce. This group has faced unique challenges that younger generations may not have encountered. The aim of this study was to synthesize qualitative research on the lived experience of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer and intersex (LGBTQI+) people aged 60 years and older. We followed the ENTREQ reporting guidelines. Articles were searched in ASSIA, CINAHL, Medline, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and Sociological Services Abstracts, with additional gray literature searches. Out of 3207 articles, 1865 were assessed using the SPIDER (sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, research type) framework. The quality of 22 articles was evaluated using SBU guidelines. Eight articles, involving 169 LGBTQI+ participants aged 60-89 years from Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United States were included. Reflexive thematic analysis revealed three themes: (a) the ongoing work of being open or of concealing, (b) the need for recognition and belonging, and (c) resilience despite challenges. Participants shared their journeys of self-discovery, highlighting their strength in the face of discrimination, as they continued to find their authentic selves over the years. While some positive and negative experiences were common across identities, others were specific for subgroups of participants, which should inform future studies.
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 | 0.034 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".