No abstract

Sexual assault is common in sexual and gender minority (SGM) individuals, but few studies have examined SGM victims’ disclosure experiences. This systematic review identified 13 studies through searches of research databases on SGM populations with sexual victimization. These studies showed wide variation in disclosure rates, various barriers to disclosure, and psychological impacts of social reactions to disclosure on SGM individuals. Bisexual women were more likely to disclose to formal (e.g., police, healthcare providers) and informal (e.g., friends, family members) sources than other women, and SGM victims disclose to mental health professionals at particularly high rates. Sexual and gender minority victims also reported numerous barriers to disclosure, including those unique to SGM individuals (e.g., fear of being outed). Impacts of negative social reactions appear to be more negative on psychological symptoms of SGM victims, whereas positive reactions are helpful to recovery. Future research is needed taking an intersectional perspective to studying disclosure and social reactions to SGM individuals from both college and community samples, by examining both sexual minority and racial/ethnic identities in the context of intersectional minority stress theory. Studies are needed of both correlates and consequences of disclosures to both informal and formal support sources to better understand SGM individuals’ reasons for telling and not telling various support sources and the impacts of their disclosure experiences on their recovery. Such data is also needed to inform interventions seeking to identify and intervene with support network members and professionals to reduce negative social reactions and their psychosocial impacts and to increase positive social reactions and general social support from informal support sources.

The current study aimed to examine the test–retest reliability and sensitivity of the Trans Collaborations Clinical Check-In (TC3) in a 3-month period with four assessment points at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 months to examine its utility as a clinical progress monitoring measure. This study builds on the initial validation study conducted by Holt et al. (2019). The sample of 32 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) participants were chosen who met screening for at least modest depression and anxiety, and did not have other significant risk factors (e.g., mania, self-harm). Participants completed a battery of measures that assessed mood, well-being, and gender-related constructs at each of the time points in addition to demographic questionnaires. Overall, the TC3 exhibited excellent test–retest reliability. While there was no systematic change in scores, there was some random variation of scores around the mean; and large, within-person correlations between time points. The TC3 also demonstrated convergence with many of the gender-related constructs, and to a lesser degree demonstrated criterion validity with mental health constructs. Further longitudinal study with larger samples in addition to study within intervention frameworks are necessary next steps to understand the utility of the TC3 for assessing systematic change over time. Overall, the current study highlights the initial utility of the TC3 to measure aspects of gender-related well-being across time, such as during health or behavioral health services.