Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37270877›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in psychology2023

Minority stress theory: Application, critique, and continued relevance.

David M Frost, Ilan H Meyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 323 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
323citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

323 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

263 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David M FrostUniversity College London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: d.frost@ucl.ac.uk.
Ilan H MeyerUniversity of California, Los Angeles, United States.

Funding

Scientific and Technical CoreP2CHD041022 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI Martha Jane Bailey · 2016 to 2026
$6.9M
NICHD NIH HHS P2C HD041022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The minority stress model has been influential in guiding research on sexual and gender minority health and well-being in psychology and related social and health sciences. Minority stress has theoretical roots in psychology, sociology, public health, and social welfare. Meyer provided the first integrative articulation of minority stress in 2003 as an explanatory theory aimed at understanding the social, psychological, and structural factors accounting for mental health inequalities facing sexual minority populations. This article reviews developments in minority stress theory over the past two decades, focusing on critiques, applications, and reflections on its continued relevance in the context of rapidly changing social and policy contexts.

Indexed as

Sexual and Gender MinoritiesGender IdentityHumansMental HealthMinority GroupsBisexualGayGender minorityHealthLesbianSexual minorityStressTransgenderWell-being

Identifiers

PMID37270877
PMCPMC10712335

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.