LGBTQIA+ inclusion in the global health policy agenda: A critical discourse analysis of the Lancet Commission report archive

PLoS One. 2024 Oct 4;19(10):e0311506. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311506. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

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.

MeSH terms

  • Global Health*
  • HIV Infections / epidemiology
  • HIV Infections / prevention & control
  • Health Policy*
  • Humans
  • Sexual and Gender Minorities*
  • Social Stigma

Grants and funding

WER is supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program. MM is supported by NCI/NIH T32 CA00946. WER and MM are both partially supported by the NCI/NIH Comprehensive Cancer Center Support award number P30 CA008748. RH and KB are funded by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) South London at King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. KB is also funded by Marie Curie UK and Gilead Sciences. These authors have no other conflicts to disclose.