ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Irreconcilable differences?: epistemic injustice and the integration of mental healthcare for LGBTQ+ young people.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Integrated youth mental healthcare is an approach that has evolved in response to the global escalation of young people's poor mental health, and the failure of current mental health systems and models to improve this situation. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ+) young people have disproportionately high rates of poor mental health compared with their cisgender, heterosexual peers, but there is a dearth of research examining how best to integrate mental healthcare for LGBTQ+ youth. Aim: To identify differences in the discursive construction of LGBTQ+ identity, youth, and mental health between LGBTQ+-specific youth mental health services and mainstream services and how these differences may facilitate or limit the integration of mental healthcare. Methods: We conducted a qualitative secondary analysis using Foucauldian discourse analysis, a method that centralises power and knowledge, to examine the discourses used to construct LGBTQ+ identity, youth, and mental health across four different mental health services. Using epistemic injustice as a theoretical framework, we analysed interviews with LGBTQ+ young people and staff (n = 30). Results: Mainstream discourses of LGBTQ+ youth mental health concentrate on risks, trauma, and harm, and reinforce a passive, pathologised, and patronised subject position for LGBTQ+ youth. In contrast, we identified three counter-discourses in LGBTQ+-specific mental health services: Knowing and telling, Resisting pathology, and Capability. These counter-discourses allowed for wider, transformative possibilities for LGBTQ+ youth subjectivities and mental wellbeing. Discussion: Existing models of integrated youth mental healthcare privilege a clinical, developmental, and universal approach that does not consider justice or the oppressive power systems implicated in LGBTQ+ young people's mental healthcare. Without addressing in/justice, there will remain fundamental irreconcilable differences that will forfeit effective and inclusive systems of mental healthcare for LGBTQ+ young people.
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.