医院的磁石地位与美国医院政策和实践中 LGBTQ+ 包容性之间的关系》(The Relationship Between a Hospital's Magnet Status and LGBTQ+ Inclusivity in Policies and Practices in US Hospitals)。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 NURSING Research in Nursing & Health Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1002/nur.22422
Hyunmin Yu, Stephen Bonett, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, Steven Meanley, Seul Ki Choi, Tari Hanneman, José A Bauermeister
{"title":"医院的磁石地位与美国医院政策和实践中 LGBTQ+ 包容性之间的关系》(The Relationship Between a Hospital's Magnet Status and LGBTQ+ Inclusivity in Policies and Practices in US Hospitals)。","authors":"Hyunmin Yu, Stephen Bonett, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, Steven Meanley, Seul Ki Choi, Tari Hanneman, José A Bauermeister","doi":"10.1002/nur.22422","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination in healthcare settings. Magnet hospitals have been associated with positive patient outcomes, yet it remains uncertain whether Magnet designation is associated with hospitals' LGBTQ+ inclusivity in policies and practices. This study examined 801 American hospitals across 47 states that participated in the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) in 2021. Multilevel modeling was utilized to investigate the association between Magnet status and HEI scores, adjusting for hospital type and state-level covariates, including LGBTQ+ inclusiveness in laws, political climate, racial/ethnic minority population, and Medicaid expansion status. Among the 801 hospitals, 32.1% (257 hospitals) held Magnet status. Magnet hospitals demonstrated higher HEI scores compared to non-Magnet hospitals (γ = 2.13, p = 0.022), despite significant variations across states (intraclass correlation = 0.22). No significant cross-level interactions were found. Overall, Magnet designation is independently associated with improved LGBTQ+ inclusivity in hospitals regardless of the state in which the hospital is located. Policymakers and healthcare leaders should consider leveraging the Magnet Recognition Program as a benchmark for promoting LGBTQ+ inclusivity within hospitals. Additionally, all healthcare institutions should prioritize comprehensive evaluations and improvements to their policies and practices to ensure inclusivity for LGBTQ+ patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":54492,"journal":{"name":"Research in Nursing & Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Relationship Between a Hospital's Magnet Status and LGBTQ+ Inclusivity in Policies and Practices in US Hospitals.\",\"authors\":\"Hyunmin Yu, Stephen Bonett, Dalmacio Dennis Flores, Steven Meanley, Seul Ki Choi, Tari Hanneman, José A Bauermeister\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/nur.22422\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination in healthcare settings. Magnet hospitals have been associated with positive patient outcomes, yet it remains uncertain whether Magnet designation is associated with hospitals' LGBTQ+ inclusivity in policies and practices. This study examined 801 American hospitals across 47 states that participated in the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) in 2021. Multilevel modeling was utilized to investigate the association between Magnet status and HEI scores, adjusting for hospital type and state-level covariates, including LGBTQ+ inclusiveness in laws, political climate, racial/ethnic minority population, and Medicaid expansion status. Among the 801 hospitals, 32.1% (257 hospitals) held Magnet status. Magnet hospitals demonstrated higher HEI scores compared to non-Magnet hospitals (γ = 2.13, p = 0.022), despite significant variations across states (intraclass correlation = 0.22). No significant cross-level interactions were found. Overall, Magnet designation is independently associated with improved LGBTQ+ inclusivity in hospitals regardless of the state in which the hospital is located. Policymakers and healthcare leaders should consider leveraging the Magnet Recognition Program as a benchmark for promoting LGBTQ+ inclusivity within hospitals. Additionally, all healthcare institutions should prioritize comprehensive evaluations and improvements to their policies and practices to ensure inclusivity for LGBTQ+ patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54492,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Nursing & Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22422\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Nursing & Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.22422","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

LGBTQ+ 在医疗机构中面临歧视。磁性医院与积极的患者治疗效果有关,但磁性医院的称号是否与医院在政策和实践中对 LGBTQ+ 的包容性有关,目前仍不确定。本研究考察了 2021 年参与医疗保健平等指数(HEI)的 47 个州的 801 家美国医院。研究采用了多层次建模方法来调查磁石地位与 HEI 分数之间的关联,并对医院类型和州一级的协变量(包括法律中的 LGBTQ+ 包容性、政治气候、种族/少数民族人口和医疗补助扩展状况)进行了调整。在 801 家医院中,32.1%(257 家医院)拥有磁性医院资格。与非磁性医院相比,磁性医院的 HEI 得分更高(γ = 2.13,p = 0.022),尽管各州之间存在显著差异(类内相关 = 0.22)。没有发现明显的跨级别交互作用。总体而言,无论医院位于哪个州,磁石称号都与医院LGBTQ+包容性的提高密切相关。政策制定者和医疗保健领导者应考虑将 "万磁认可计划 "作为促进医院LGBTQ+包容性的基准。此外,所有医疗机构都应优先考虑对其政策和实践进行全面评估和改进,以确保对 LGBTQ+ 患者的包容性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The Relationship Between a Hospital's Magnet Status and LGBTQ+ Inclusivity in Policies and Practices in US Hospitals.

LGBTQ+ individuals face discrimination in healthcare settings. Magnet hospitals have been associated with positive patient outcomes, yet it remains uncertain whether Magnet designation is associated with hospitals' LGBTQ+ inclusivity in policies and practices. This study examined 801 American hospitals across 47 states that participated in the Healthcare Equality Index (HEI) in 2021. Multilevel modeling was utilized to investigate the association between Magnet status and HEI scores, adjusting for hospital type and state-level covariates, including LGBTQ+ inclusiveness in laws, political climate, racial/ethnic minority population, and Medicaid expansion status. Among the 801 hospitals, 32.1% (257 hospitals) held Magnet status. Magnet hospitals demonstrated higher HEI scores compared to non-Magnet hospitals (γ = 2.13, p = 0.022), despite significant variations across states (intraclass correlation = 0.22). No significant cross-level interactions were found. Overall, Magnet designation is independently associated with improved LGBTQ+ inclusivity in hospitals regardless of the state in which the hospital is located. Policymakers and healthcare leaders should consider leveraging the Magnet Recognition Program as a benchmark for promoting LGBTQ+ inclusivity within hospitals. Additionally, all healthcare institutions should prioritize comprehensive evaluations and improvements to their policies and practices to ensure inclusivity for LGBTQ+ patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
73
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Research in Nursing & Health ( RINAH ) is a peer-reviewed general research journal devoted to publication of a wide range of research that will inform the practice of nursing and other health disciplines. The editors invite reports of research describing problems and testing interventions related to health phenomena, health care and self-care, clinical organization and administration; and the testing of research findings in practice. Research protocols are considered if funded in a peer-reviewed process by an agency external to the authors’ home institution and if the work is in progress. Papers on research methods and techniques are appropriate if they go beyond what is already generally available in the literature and include description of successful use of the method. Theory papers are accepted if each proposition is supported by research evidence. Systematic reviews of the literature are reviewed if PRISMA guidelines are followed. Letters to the editor commenting on published articles are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Chinese Translation and Measurement of the Heart Failure Needs Assessment Questionnaire in Mainland China. Childbirth Journey Through Virtual Reality: Pain, Anxiety and Birth Perception: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Exploration of the Fertility Decision-Making Experiences of Women of Reproductive Age With Cancer: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Workplace Violence and Health Status of Female Nurses: A Cross-Sectional Study. Factors Influencing Shoulder Joint Function in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Mixed-Methods Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1