Understanding the Dynamics of Informal, Community-Based Care Among LGBTQ2+ Young Adults in Southwestern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Historically, North American health care has been developed through predominantly a hetero- and cis-normative, and white, lens which has led to the social exclusion of LGBTQ2+ individuals through institutional heterosexism, racism, homophobia, and transphobia (Brotman, Ferrer, Sussman, Ryan, & Richard, 2015; Gahagan & Colpitts, 2017; Hudson & Romanelli, 2019; Pepper, 2015; Warner, 2002). Non-inclusive health care services have the potential to compromise the well-being LGBTQ2+ young adults and influence their willingness to seek health care services, which can lead to additional adverse health outcomes (Burch, 2008; Gahagan & Colpitts, 2017; Hudson & Romanelli, 2019; Zay Hta et al., 2021). Emerging research presents evidence that a sense of community care develops among marginalized groups struggling with similar adversities; however, there are several uncertainties surrounding the experiences of informal community-based care that LGBTQ2+ young adults provide or receive in the absence of inclusive, professional health care services (Gahagan & Colpitts, 2017; Garcia, 2010; Kleinman & Van der geest, 2009; Sturman & Matheson, 2020). \nSpecific aims: The goal of this research is to explore whether LGBTQ2+ young adults in Southwestern Ontario receive and provide informal community-based care for one another in the potential and/or perceived absence of sexuality-inclusive and trans/non-binary gender competent health care services. My research sought to identify which informal, community-based care practices might be enacted amongst this marginalized population, as well as determining what prompts these young adults to offer and receive this type of emergent care. \n \nMethods: This study included qualitative semi-structured interviews with young adults in Southwestern Ontario who identify as a part of the LGBTQ2+ community. The interviews explored their experiences within the formal health care system and community-based care. Calls for the participation of LGBTQ2+ community members to were advertised via flyers (see Appendix. A) that were distributed online through LGBTQ2+ networks, social media forums, LGBTQ2+ servers (Twitter, Discord, Reddit). Zoom video conferencing software was used to conduct the interviews. Abductive reasoning was applied during the narrative analysis of the participants’ responses to identify potential motivations and ways in which LGBTQ2+ young adults promote well-being amongst themselves. Autoethnographic reflection pieces were utilized throughout the study and during the analysis to provide further experiential insights as well as my own voice in the findings. \n \nResults: Responses garnered from 10 interviews with LGBTQ2+ young adults (24-27) living in southwestern Ontario are included in the results of this study to demonstrate their experiences with formal health care services and informal community-based care. These experiences provide reasonings for the reluctance to rely on formal health care as well as impetuses for turning to informal community-based care. The most common methods of informal community-based care included forms of emotional, physical and epistemic care. Lastly, the results of this study illuminated the existence of a sense of watchfulness and social obligation to care for fellow members of the LGBTQ2+ community that transcend social, economic and geographic differences. \nConclusion: The results from the study illustrate how sex, sexuality, trans/ non-binary gender, and variation of gender identity or expression, can shape young peoples’ experiences with or their willingness to seek out health care services. The findings of the study demonstrate the potential reluctance for LGBTQ2+ young adults to solely rely on mainstream health care practices by illuminating the prevalent barriers to inclusive services. This study is one of the first to identity some of the potential approaches that LGBTQ2+ young adults might employ to provide care to, or receive care from, fellow community members (alternatively to, or in tandem with, formal health care). Lastly, the study describes the possible impetuses beyond the unwillingness to pursue formalized health care services, for the utilization of informal community-based care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".