MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417331903 · doi:10.32920/29474903

Advancing Health Equity Among Older Racialized LGBTQ+ Immigrants: Findings of a Scoping Review and Program Scan

2025· article· W4417331903 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Josephine Pui‐Hing Wong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsHealth equityImmigrationHealth careDistrustRace and healthStigma (botany)Mental healthSocial determinants of healthEquity (law)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada’s population is aging. It is estimated that there are at least 400,000 LGBTQ+ seniors in Canada. Despite the advancement of gay rights in Canada, LGBTQ+ seniors, especially members of racialized and/or immigrant communities, have often been excluded from research and health care planning. Our team conducted a scoping review of existing evidence on the health and wellbeing of racialized and/or immigrant LGBTQ+ seniors. The review shows: There is limited research in Canada. Out of the 14 studies selected, only two were conducted in Canada. The health and wellbeing of racialized and/or immigrant LGBTQ+ seniors are affected by many social factors: household income, education, limited familial and social support, housing, food security, and social exclusion. Many racialized and immigrant LGBTQ+ seniors tend to distrust the health care system due to experiences of stigma and discrimination. At the same time, services are often inaccessible or not available to them. As a result, they may delay treatment and rely on alternative care such as spiritual and natural healing. These factors lead to poor health and mental health outcomes. To advance health equity, it is important to address multiple related factors by: Engaging racialized/immigrant LGBTQ+ seniors to identify their unique needs Providing culturally inclusive and accessible services that affirm their intersecting social identities Promoting their individual and collective resilience Addressing systemic barriers and social isolation Ensuring equitable funding and resources

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.034
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.129
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0340.129
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0180.025
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.457 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy→French-language works237,207→