CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91LGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsGender and Feminist Studies

“like finding a unicorn”: healthcare preferences among lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in the United States

Open access
Martos, Alexander J., Wilson, Patrick A., Gordon, Allegra R., Lightfoot, Marguerita, Meyer, Ilan H.·2018·Social Science & Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.020PMC PMC6382457
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) peoples' healthcare preferences are often developed in response to social and institutional factors that can ultimately deter them from care. Prior qualitative explorations of LGB healthcare preferences have been limited in their ability to identify and compare patterns across age cohort, gender, and race/ethnicity. The current study examines qualitative data from 186 modified Life Story Interviews with three age cohorts of LGB people from New York City, NY, San Francisco, CA, Tucson, AZ, and Austin, TX to understand the factors influencing LGB people's healthcare preferences. Data are analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. Five key themes emerged regarding influences on healthcare preferences: Stigma, provider expertise, identity, service type, and access. Findings suggest that healthcare preferences among LGB people are both complex and closely linked to social changes over time. Healthcare preferences among LGB people are both complex and closely linked to social changes over time.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.020

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior to the pandemic, LGBTQ+ individuals reported inadequate care due to stigmatizing experiences in health care settings.

    “Prior to the onset of the pandemic, LGBTQ+ individuals reported inadequate care due to having stigmatizing experiences in health care settings [13] and lack of provider knowledge about their unique health care needs [14].”

    From A randomized trial of acceptance-based behavioral therapy to improve mental health outcomes for LGBTQ+ persons: Study protocol (2023) · cites this paper as [13]

    In Results > Stigma (page unavailable), participants describe stigma affecting communication with providers and their confidence in the care they receive. Results > Access gives an example of a participant reporting an offensive diagnosis, but she says her care was medically good for her primary condition. The study concerns lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, not the full LGBTQ+ population, and does not establish that participants generally received inadequate care because of stigmatizing experiences. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Martos, A. J., Wilson, P. A., Gordon, A. R., Lightfoot, M., & Meyer, I. H.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Martos, Alexander J.
ORCID
Venue
Social Science & Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-07
Volume
208
Pages
126-133
ISSN
0277-9536 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.05.020
PMC
PMC6382457
OpenAlex
W2800075097
Cited by
91
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 6
FWCI
14.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Social Science & Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD078526, P2CHD041022)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender and Feminist Studies
Keywords
lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, health care preferences, health care access, stigma, sexual identity, age cohorts, gender differences, race and ethnicity, barriers to care, social change
MeSH terms
Sexual and Gender Minorities, Adolescent, Adult, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Homosexuality, Male, Homosexuality, Female, Young Adult, Patient Preference, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review