Healthcare provider experience in caring for sexual minority patients in West Africa: An integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Sexual Minority People (LGBTQ) are a population experiencing significant health disparities, including higher rates of diseases, injury, and violence. Their marginalized status also limits their opportunities to achieve optimal health outcomes. While LGBTQ individuals face significant stigma and discrimination in accessing healthcare, the experiences of healthcare providers – key stakeholders in addressing these challenges – remains underexplored, which is the objective of this study, exploring the experiences of the care providers. Purpose: To describe the experiences of providers and contribute to improving the competence of Ghanaian nurses in their care for sexual minority patients. Methods: An integrative literature review, following the standards of Whittemore and Knafl’s framework. Literature was search on CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, Global Public Health, and Google Scholar, using sexual minority (LGBTQ), healthcare providers and West Africa as broad concepts to generate keywords. Results: A total of 156 articles were retrieved from database searches, and were filtered using predefined inclusion criteria, focusing on relevance and methodological rigor, using the PRISMA review process and 4 final articles were included in the review. These studies highlighted stigma from healthcare providers, poor knowledge of sexual identity, sexual orientation and the unique needs of sexual minority people. Institutional homophobia and unsafe healthcare facilities for LGBTQ people were also unearthed. Implications: Healthcare related stigma must be addressed through; continued professional development training for healthcare workers to understand the impact of stigma and promote their knowledge of sexual minority health needs, implementing culturally safe curriculum on minority healthcare, and making healthcare facilities minority friendly.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".