ArticleBMJ open2026
Article in BMJ open, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLGBTQ+ young people in rural Australia face significant health challenges due to stigma, discrimination and structural barriers that hinder effective access to care. The inaccessibility or altogether absence of tailored primary healthcare services exacerbates poor health outcomes.
methodsSafer Spaces will use a mixed-methods approach combining participatory systems science with health economics methods to co-design and implement a ''Safer Spaces' Model of Primary Healthcare (SSMPH) targeting LGBTQ+ young people aged 12-25 years in rural Western Victoria. Phase 1 co-design of the SSMPH will be achieved through the establishment of a Queer Health Alliance, engagement in Group Model Building workshops via Deakin's STICKE platform and the administration of a Discrete Choice Experiment to ascertain LGBTQ+ young people's primary health service preferences. Phase 2 will implement strategies co-designed in phase 1 supporting primary healthcare for LGBTQ+ young people that are equitable, accessible and responsive to local needs. Implementation efficacy will be evaluated using participatory qualitative methods, systems-based monitoring (including causal loop diagrams and social network analysis) and stakeholder-led evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this research project has been granted by Deakin University's Human Research Ethics Committee. Safer Spaces will be developed in collaboration with lived experience researchers and the community. The knowledge translation plan will be integrated and revised throughout the project as partnerships and engagement with LGBTQ+ young people and their allies continue. All findings will be shared with rural health research bodies, policy makers, rural health providers and LGBTQ+ young people in ways that are meaningful to them. DISCUSSION: This protocol addresses critical gaps in rural health equity for LGBTQ+ young people by generating insights to guide community-informed service reform and building systemic capacity.
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.