Sidelined by the side-eye: Exploring the effects of nonverbal communication in healthcare services for 2SLGBTQI+ patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing on a subset of the research data from the Queer Queering and Questioning (QQQ) project, a qualitative study examining patient and provider perceptions of good-quality healthcare for people who identify themselves as 2SLGBTQI+ (Two Spirit, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer/Questioning and/or Intersex+), this paper explores the significance of nonverbal communication in shaping healthcare experiences for 2SLGBTQI+ patients. Using data from 68 individual interviews and 11 focus groups, constructivist-grounded theory approaches, including reflexive thematic coding and continuous coding, were used to reveal the effects of unconscious nonverbal communication on patients' experiences. The analysis of the participant narratives suggests that greater attention to communication skills and critical reflexivity in health professional education and training would improve the patient experience by supporting healthcare professionals to manage unconscious responses and by providing professionals with better knowledge and resources to care for the needs of 2SLGBTQI+ patients. Attention to the clinical space and the design of physical environments to demonstrate knowledge, care, and concern for 2SLGBTQI+ patients would also enhance positive outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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, 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".