METHODS: Our literature search of peer-reviewed English language primary source articles published between 1991 and 2018 was conducted across six databases (Embase, PubMed, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Academic Search Complete) and Google Scholar, yielding 3844 articles. After duplicate removal, we independently screened 3413 studies to determine whether they met inclusion criteria. Seventy-six studies were identified for inclusion in this review. Data were extracted on study characteristics, content, and findings.
FINDINGS: Seventy-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The most represented subgroups were Chinese (n = 74), Japanese (n = 60), and Filipino (n = 60), while Indonesian (n = 1), Malaysian (n = 1), and Burmese (n = 1) were included in only one or two studies. Several Asian American subgroups listed in the 2010 U.S. Census were not represented in any of the studies. Overall, the most studied health conditions were cancer (n = 29), diabetes (n = 13), maternal and infant health (n = 10), and cardiovascular disease (n = 9). Studies showed that health outcomes varied greatly across subgroups.
CONCLUSIONS: More research is required to focus on smaller-sized subgroup populations to obtain accurate results and address health disparities for all groups.
DESIGN: Exploratory cross-sectional survey administered by trained interviewers among participants of a health screening program.
SETTING: A rural plantation estate in the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia.
PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and thirty out of 142 adults above 18 years old who attended the program.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Percentages of respondents reporting realised access and unmet need to health care, determinants of both access indicators and reasons for unmet need. Realised access associated with need but not predisposing or enabling factors and unmet need not associated with any variables were considered equitable.
RESULTS: A total of 88 (67.7%) respondents had visited a doctor (realised access) in the past 6 months and 24.8% (n = 31) experienced unmet need in the past 12 months. Using logistic regression, realised access was associated with presence of chronic disease (OR 6.97, P RM 2000 per month) (OR 51.27, P
METHODS: This mixed-methods study adopts a convergent parallel design. The Health Stigma and Discrimination Framework was referenced to devise in-depth interviews with representatives from 13 LGBTQI-affirming non-governmental organisations, analysed through thematic analysis. 320 clinical medical students were surveyed about attitudes, knowledge, comfort, preparedness, and perceived importance of/towards LGBTQI+ health, analysed via descriptive statistics and multivariate regression.
RESULTS: Prevailing stigma in Singaporean society against LGBTQI+ individuals is exacerbated in healthcare settings. Doctors were cited as unfamiliar or uncomfortable with LGBTQI+ health, possibly from lack of training. Among medical students surveyed, the median composite attitudes, comfort and preparedness index was 3.30 (Interquartile Range (IQR) = 0.50), 3.17 (IQR = 0.83), 2.50 (IQR = 1.00) respectively. Only 12.19% of students answered all 11 true-false questions about LGBTQI+ health correctly.
CONCLUSION: Medical students in Singapore have scored sub-optimally in their knowledge and preparedness towards LGBTQI+ health, while interpersonal and structural stigma in healthcare towards LGBTQI+ people in Singapore negatively affects health and wellbeing. These findings are an impetus to improve medical training in this area. High scores among medical students in attitudes, comfort and perceived importance of LGBTQI+ topics demonstrate that there is space for LGBTQI+ health in the local medical education curriculum. Curricular interventions can prioritise content knowledge, communication skills and sensitivity.