4.3 Article

Addressing Health Disparities of Lesbian and Bisexual Women: A Grounded Theory Study

期刊

WOMENS HEALTH ISSUES
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 635-640

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2014.08.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Lesbian and bisexual (LB) women encounter numerous barriers to equitable health care services, such as lack of quality care and discriminatory health care settings. These barriers affect the well-being of LB women, presumably leading to disparities in health and health care. Despite these disparities, few published research studies explore health services of LB women. This qualitative, grounded theory study addressed that gap. Methods: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 18- to 24-year-old women who identified as LB and who reported using health services as an adult. Participants (n = 9) were recruited from lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender student groups at universities in the Southwestern United States, and in-depth audio recorded interviews were performed. The nine participants represent 29 unique health care experiences. The transcriptions were uploaded into NVivo, and the constant comparison method was used to analyze the data. Findings: Six themes were identified, including seeking health care, expectations, disclosure of sexual orientation, moment of truth (provider attributes), proximal outcomes, and health outcomes. These themes were sorted into an explanatory conceptual framework that represents three distinct phases of the health care experience: Pre-interaction, health care interaction, and outcomes. Conclusions: The women in this study identified disclosure of sexual orientation and provider attributes as major points in the health care experience. Creating health care environments that facilitate disclosure of sexual orientation and educating providers about LB-appropriate care are strategies that may impact health and health care disparities of LB women. Copyright (C) 2014 by the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据