Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The politics of LGBT+ health inequality

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review. / McDermott, E.; Nelson, R.; Weeks, H.
In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 18, No. 2, 826, 19.01.2021.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

McDermott, E, Nelson, R & Weeks, H 2021, 'The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review', International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 2, 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020826

APA

McDermott, E., Nelson, R., & Weeks, H. (2021). The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(2), Article 826. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18020826

Vancouver

McDermott E, Nelson R, Weeks H. The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 Jan 19;18(2):826. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020826

Author

McDermott, E. ; Nelson, R. ; Weeks, H. / The politics of LGBT+ health inequality : Conclusions from a UK scoping review. In: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021 ; Vol. 18, No. 2.

Bibtex

@article{e0140400f85c48f58ffd71284239228c,
title = "The politics of LGBT+ health inequality: Conclusions from a UK scoping review",
abstract = "This scoping review of UK evidence aimed to describe what is known about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans (LGBT+) health inequalities in relation to cancer, mental health, and palliative care to inform research, policy and public health interventions. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified studies from database searches, citation tracking, and expert consultation. The in/exclusion criteria was based on the PICOS framework. The data were charted and then summarised to map the theoretical approaches and the main types of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. In total, 279 articles were screened and 83 were included in the final review. We found that there is limited UK research examining LGBT+ health inequality in cancer, mental health and palliative care. We would argue that this thin evidence base is partly due to national policy discussions of LGBT+ health inequality that are framed within a depoliticised {\textquoteleft}it{\textquoteright}s getting better{\textquoteright} narrative, and an unwillingness to adequately acknowledge the unjust social and economic relations that produce LGBT+ health inequality. In addition, LGBT+ health inequality is depoliticised by existing public health explanatory theories, models and frameworks that exclude sexual orientation and gender diversity as dimensions of power that interlock with those of socio-economic, race and ethnicity. This is a barrier to developing public health interventions that can successfully tackle LGBT+ health inequality. {\textcopyright} 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.",
keywords = "Cancer, End of life care, Health, Inequality, LGBT, Mental health, Palliative care, Scoping review, UK",
author = "E. McDermott and R. Nelson and H. Weeks",
year = "2021",
month = jan,
day = "19",
doi = "10.3390/ijerph18020826",
language = "English",
volume = "18",
journal = "International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health",
issn = "1660-4601",
publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The politics of LGBT+ health inequality

T2 - Conclusions from a UK scoping review

AU - McDermott, E.

AU - Nelson, R.

AU - Weeks, H.

PY - 2021/1/19

Y1 - 2021/1/19

N2 - This scoping review of UK evidence aimed to describe what is known about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans (LGBT+) health inequalities in relation to cancer, mental health, and palliative care to inform research, policy and public health interventions. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified studies from database searches, citation tracking, and expert consultation. The in/exclusion criteria was based on the PICOS framework. The data were charted and then summarised to map the theoretical approaches and the main types of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. In total, 279 articles were screened and 83 were included in the final review. We found that there is limited UK research examining LGBT+ health inequality in cancer, mental health and palliative care. We would argue that this thin evidence base is partly due to national policy discussions of LGBT+ health inequality that are framed within a depoliticised ‘it’s getting better’ narrative, and an unwillingness to adequately acknowledge the unjust social and economic relations that produce LGBT+ health inequality. In addition, LGBT+ health inequality is depoliticised by existing public health explanatory theories, models and frameworks that exclude sexual orientation and gender diversity as dimensions of power that interlock with those of socio-economic, race and ethnicity. This is a barrier to developing public health interventions that can successfully tackle LGBT+ health inequality. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

AB - This scoping review of UK evidence aimed to describe what is known about Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Trans (LGBT+) health inequalities in relation to cancer, mental health, and palliative care to inform research, policy and public health interventions. Using a scoping review methodology, we identified studies from database searches, citation tracking, and expert consultation. The in/exclusion criteria was based on the PICOS framework. The data were charted and then summarised to map the theoretical approaches and the main types of evidence and identify knowledge gaps. In total, 279 articles were screened and 83 were included in the final review. We found that there is limited UK research examining LGBT+ health inequality in cancer, mental health and palliative care. We would argue that this thin evidence base is partly due to national policy discussions of LGBT+ health inequality that are framed within a depoliticised ‘it’s getting better’ narrative, and an unwillingness to adequately acknowledge the unjust social and economic relations that produce LGBT+ health inequality. In addition, LGBT+ health inequality is depoliticised by existing public health explanatory theories, models and frameworks that exclude sexual orientation and gender diversity as dimensions of power that interlock with those of socio-economic, race and ethnicity. This is a barrier to developing public health interventions that can successfully tackle LGBT+ health inequality. © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.

KW - Cancer

KW - End of life care

KW - Health

KW - Inequality

KW - LGBT

KW - Mental health

KW - Palliative care

KW - Scoping review

KW - UK

U2 - 10.3390/ijerph18020826

DO - 10.3390/ijerph18020826

M3 - Journal article

VL - 18

JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

SN - 1660-4601

IS - 2

M1 - 826

ER -