Long-Term Care Facilities by Design: The Different Preferences of Location, Features, and Policies of LTC Facilities Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Heterosexual Adults in Germany
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study explored the preferences about features, policies, and location of long-term care (LTC) facilities among cis- and transgender individuals with different forms of sexual orientation, that is, identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB), in comparison with each other and to those identified as heterosexual (HET) in Germany. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A quota-sample of n = 4000 participants aged 40 to 70 years (n = 333 identified as LGB), including cis- and transgender individuals, drawn from the Online Access Panel of Respondi/Bilendi (German market research institute). METHODS: Participants rated the importance of LTC facilities' features and policy (eg, living with spouse, permitted a pet) and location (eg, in a city). Analyses were conducted with adjusted multiple regression analyses with robust standard errors. RESULTS: LGB participants rated a location within a city, permission for intimate relationships, lesbian, gay, bi, and trans (LGBT)-friendly and LGBT-only LTC facilities as significantly more important and HET-only LTC facilities as significantly less important than HET participants. Compared with gay men, bisexual men rated LGBT-friendly and LGBT-only LTC facilities as less important, whereas lesbian women placed more importance on having their own room and keeping pets. Bisexual women placed less importance on LGBT-only LTC facilities and location within a city, but more importance on keeping pets than gay men. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Preferences concerning LTC facilities were reported by individuals with different sexual orientation, including cis- and transgender adults in Germany. The LGB and HET community reported different preferences for policies, features, and location of LTC facilities, highlighting the importance of creating a welcoming space for the LGB community. Differences in preferences between gay, lesbian, and especially the understudied bisexual community further emphasized the need to take a diversified approach to research and policy decisions on LTC facilities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".