Table 2.
Results of the logistic regression models (n = 150)
| Predictors | Odds Ratio (95%CIs) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Feels confident in ability to communicate with 2SLGBTQIA+ persons | Feels unprepared to discuss issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity with clients | Feels competent assessing 2SLGBTQIA+ clients | |
| Confident in ability to communicate with 2SLGBTQIA+ persons | |||
| No | – | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | – | 0.41 (0.27 to 0.62) | 3.13 (1.42 to 6.87) |
| Feel unprepared to discuss issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity with clients | |||
| No | 0.40 (0.27 to 0.61) | – | 0.40 (0.24 to 0.67) |
| Yes | Ref | – | Ref |
| Feel competent assessing 2SLGBTQIA+ clients | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | – |
| Yes | 3.16 (1.43 to 7.00) | 0.40 (0.24 to 0.67) | – |
| 10 or more hours of 2SLGBTQIA+ training | |||
| < 10 h | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| 10 + hours | 1.27 (0.65 to 2.50) | 0.55 (0.36 to 0.85) | 1.92 (1.00 to 3.68) |
| Identifies as 2SLGBTQIA+ | |||
| No | Ref | Ref | Ref |
| Yes | 4.89 (1.07 to 22.24) | 0.52 (0.20 to 1.37) | 2.09 (0.92 to 4.77) |
The variance was adjusted for university attended using robust sandwich estimators
Bolded estimates represent statistically significant associations at the 5% level
Abbreviations: 2SLGBTQIA+ two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic and all other identities not considered heterosexual and cisgender, CI confidence intervals, Ref. reference variable