ArticleThe Journal of social issues2024
The damaging legacy of damage-centered LGBTIQ+ research: Implications for healthcare and LGBTIQ+ health.
Article in The Journal of social issues, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does Honouring Assent Really Respect the Preferences and Values of Research Participants with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- How do substance and polysubstance use trajectories differ by sexual attraction from ages 17 to 24? A community-based longitudinal cohort study in Switzerland.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Sexual minority (LGBQ+) women's experiences of accessing addiction services: a qualitative study.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research on LGBTIQ+ populations has focused primarily on identifying problems in the community (e.g., health disparities) and their predictors (e.g., minority stressors, discrimination). Scholars have argued that the approach of highlighting "damage" or deficits has been helpful for advocacy but has also harmed this community by perpetuating stereotypes (e.g., LGBTIQ+ individuals are unhealthy), ignoring or devaluing positive LGBTIQ+ experiences, and contributing to negative interactions in healthcare settings. To evaluate the extent to which a damage-centered approach dominates the body of available research, the authors of this article conducted a content analysis of articles related to LGBTIQ+ health published in the
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.