The needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people living with dementia: a systematic review with thematic synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: LGBT + people are disproportionately at an increased risk for developing dementia. Dementia can compound the impact of stigma and social marginalisation experienced by LGBT + people, and is likely to create barriers to accessing healthcare services. Understanding the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia will help support high quality individualised care. The aim of this review is to explore and synthesise the evidence on the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia. METHODS: Systematic review with thematic synthesis. The search strategy combined concepts of gender and sexual minorities, and dementia. MEDLINE Complete, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Academic Search Ultimate were searched until March 2024. Relevant published papers in the English language were included, regardless of design or type. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Findings were discussed from a queer lens. RESULTS: Out of 1537 initial titles, 16 papers were included. Majority were published in the UK (n = 8), followed by USA (n = 4), Canada (n = 2), and Australia (n = 2). Of 16 papers, two were empirical qualitative studies, one used a subset of qualitative data from a previous study alongside other sources (literature review, reflection, policy) for data analysis, and 13 papers were non-empirical. The experiences primarily focused on actual or anticipated discrimination, and how the lifetime experiences of oppression, trauma, and other stressors can impact on the experience of dementia. Many of the needs captured focused on safety and control in identity disclosure and expression, and access to love, intimacy, and social networks. In addition, maintaining personhood through institutional safety, psychological safety, and attachment through relationships and couplehood were highlighted. Data on preferences were not explicit. CONCLUSION: The robustness of the science is weak regarding the needs, preferences, and experiences of LGBT + people with dementia. Designing and implementing dementia-related policies through a queer intersectional lens, along with embedded cultural safety education programmes, are needed. Further research that includes the voice of LGBT + people with dementia coupled with healthcare professionals' perspective is needed.
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 | 0.032 | 0.087 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".