TY - JOUR
T1 - LGBTQIA+ inclusion in the global health policy agenda
T2 - A critical discourse analysis of the Lancet Commission report archive
AU - Rosa, William E
AU - Weiss Goitiandia, Sofia
AU - Braybrook, Debbie
AU - Metheny, Nicholas
AU - Roberts, Kailey E
AU - McDarby, Meghan
AU - Behrens, Mia
AU - Berkman, Cathy
AU - Stein, Gary L
AU - Adedimeji, Adebola
AU - Wakefield, Donna
AU - Harding, Richard
AU - Spence, Dingle
AU - Bristowe, Katherine
N1 - Copyright: © 2024 Rosa et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PY - 2024/10/4
Y1 - 2024/10/4
N2 - CONTEXT: LGBTQIA+ people worldwide experience discrimination, violence, and stigma that lead to poor health outcomes. Policy plays a crucial role in ensuring health equity and safety for LGBTQIA+ communities. Given Lancet Commissions' substantial impact on health policy across domains, we aimed to determine how LGBTQIA+ communities and their care needs are incorporated throughout Lancet Commission reports and recommendations.METHODS: Using critical discourse analysis, we analyzed 102 Commissions for inclusion of and reference to LGBTQIA+ communities using 36 key terms. Three levels of analysis were conducted: 1) micro-level (overview of terminology use); 2) meso-level (visibility and placement of LGBTQIA+ references); and 3) macro-level (outlining characterizations and framing of references with consideration of broader social discourses).FINDINGS: 36 of 102 (35%) Commissions referenced LGBTQIA+ communities with 801 mentions in total. There were minimal (9/36) references made in the "Executive Summary," "Recommendations," and/or "Key Messages" sections of reports. LGBTQIA+ communities were most frequently discussed in reports related to HIV/AIDS and sexual and reproductive health. Few Commissions related to public health, or chronic conditions (9/60) referenced LGBTQIA+ communities. Some reports made non-specific or unexplained references; many discussed the LGBTQIA+ population without specific reference to sub-groups. LGBTQIA+ communities were often listed alongside other marginalized groups without rationale or a description of shared needs or experiences. We identified framings (legal, vulnerability, risk) and characterizations (as victims, as blameworthy, as a problem) of LGBTQIA+ communities that contribute to problematizing discourse.CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQIA+ people were rarely included in the Commissions, resulting in an inadvertent marginalization of their health needs. Policy initiatives must consider LGBTQIA+ groups from a strengths-based rather than problematizing perspective, integrating evidence-based approaches alongside community-based stakeholder engagement to mitigate inequities and promote inclusive care and policymaking.
AB - CONTEXT: LGBTQIA+ people worldwide experience discrimination, violence, and stigma that lead to poor health outcomes. Policy plays a crucial role in ensuring health equity and safety for LGBTQIA+ communities. Given Lancet Commissions' substantial impact on health policy across domains, we aimed to determine how LGBTQIA+ communities and their care needs are incorporated throughout Lancet Commission reports and recommendations.METHODS: Using critical discourse analysis, we analyzed 102 Commissions for inclusion of and reference to LGBTQIA+ communities using 36 key terms. Three levels of analysis were conducted: 1) micro-level (overview of terminology use); 2) meso-level (visibility and placement of LGBTQIA+ references); and 3) macro-level (outlining characterizations and framing of references with consideration of broader social discourses).FINDINGS: 36 of 102 (35%) Commissions referenced LGBTQIA+ communities with 801 mentions in total. There were minimal (9/36) references made in the "Executive Summary," "Recommendations," and/or "Key Messages" sections of reports. LGBTQIA+ communities were most frequently discussed in reports related to HIV/AIDS and sexual and reproductive health. Few Commissions related to public health, or chronic conditions (9/60) referenced LGBTQIA+ communities. Some reports made non-specific or unexplained references; many discussed the LGBTQIA+ population without specific reference to sub-groups. LGBTQIA+ communities were often listed alongside other marginalized groups without rationale or a description of shared needs or experiences. We identified framings (legal, vulnerability, risk) and characterizations (as victims, as blameworthy, as a problem) of LGBTQIA+ communities that contribute to problematizing discourse.CONCLUSIONS: LGBTQIA+ people were rarely included in the Commissions, resulting in an inadvertent marginalization of their health needs. Policy initiatives must consider LGBTQIA+ groups from a strengths-based rather than problematizing perspective, integrating evidence-based approaches alongside community-based stakeholder engagement to mitigate inequities and promote inclusive care and policymaking.
KW - Humans
KW - Health Policy
KW - Sexual and Gender Minorities
KW - Global Health
KW - Social Stigma
KW - HIV Infections/epidemiology
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85205755816&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0311506
DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0311506
M3 - Article
C2 - 39365801
SN - 1932-6203
VL - 19
SP - e0311506
JO - PLoS ONE
JF - PLoS ONE
IS - 10
M1 - e0311506
ER -
