Inaccessible and stigmatizing: LGBTQ+ youth perspectives of services and sexual violence
Rattachement africain : gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ+) young people are subject to high rates of sexual violence globally, significantly impacting their lives and psychological wellbeing. However, service use for sexual violence support is low for LGBTQ+ groups and there is no current research exploring LGBTQ+ young peoples’ experiences and perspectives of support services in the UK. To understand service utilisation for LGBTQ+ young people who have experienced sexual violence, a mixed methods exploration of survey data (N = 36) and individual interviews (N = 7) was conducted with LGBTQ+ young people aged 16–25. Participants reported a high prevalence of multiple types of sexual violence (e.g., 86.11% subject to sexual assault) and low reporting to any service (30.56%). Content analysis identified interpersonal, service, and sociocultural factors that limit service utilisation and sexual violence reporting. Two themes were identified through thematic analysis: ‘safety and acceptance’ which discussed participants’ positive experiences of services, and the theme ‘services as hard to reach’ explored how discrimination, heteronormativity, and victim-blaming impacted service accessibility. Implications for best practice for services supporting LGBTQ+ young people subject to sexual violence are discussed and a model is presented to address service utilisation.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Inaccessible and stigmatizing: LGBTQ+ youth perspectives of services and sexual violence
- Date Crossref
- 20/10/2022
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.