ArticlePloS one2026
Work participation disparities among LGBTQ+ Australians: Insights from a nationally representative cohort study.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study examined work participation disparities among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexually and/or gender diverse (LGBTQ+) adults using nationally representative data from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. Sexual identity data were collected in wave 20 (2020) from 14,302 participants and gender identity data in wave 23 (2023) from 13,981 participants. Multivariable regression models examined associations between sexual or gender identity and work participation measures. Sexual identity was analysed cross-sectionally (wave 20) and longitudinally (waves 20-23), while gender identity was analysed cross-sectionally (wave 23). Compared to heterosexual participants, those identifying as gay or lesbian were more likely to be unemployed (prevalence ratio [PR] 2.05, 95% CI 1.01-4.14) and less likely to work in trades or manual occupations (PR 0.55, 95% CI 0.36-0.85) or in manufacturing and construction (PR 0.40, 95% CI 0.23-0.72). Bisexual participants had higher prevalence of labour force non-participation (PR 1.91, 95% CI 1.49-2.47) and unemployment (PR 2.05, 95% CI 1.24-3.38), and were less likely to work in agriculture, forestry or mining (PR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08-0.79). Participants of other sexual identities also had higher unemployment (PR 2.78, 95% CI 1.41-5.45). Longitudinally, bisexual participants were more likely to transition out of employment (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.08, 95% CI 1.35-3.21) and initiate paid sick leave (IRR 1.42, 95% CI 1.17-1.71), while gay or lesbian participants were more likely to commence working from home (IRR 1.72, 95% CI 1.21-2.44). Transgender and gender diverse participants were less likely to work in manufacturing and construction (PR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17-0.75) and worked fewer hours (PR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97) than cisgender peers. These findings highlight inequalities in work participation among LGBTQ+ adults, underscoring the need for dedicated research and inclusive workplace policies.
Indexed as
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.