“Is This Normal? Is This Not Normal? There Is No Set Example”: Sexual Health Intervention Preferences of LGBT Youth in Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Limited research has examined the romantic relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth (LGBT) despite evidence of relationship-oriented risks, including STI/HIV infection, unplanned pregnancy, and interpersonal violence. In efforts to inform future dyadic sexual health interventions for LGBT youth, this couples-based study aimed to identify the most salient sexual and relationships concerns of young same-sex couples and to assess their preferences for intervention content and format. Participants were a subset 36 young, racially and ethnically diverse, same-sex couples (N = 72 individuals) recruited from two on-going longitudinal studies. Interviews were coded using a constant comparison method and a process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. The analysis yielded the following intervention themes: addressing sexual risk and protective behaviors, improving communication, coping with family and relationship violence, and identifying role models and sources of support. The couples reported a clear preference for small group interventions and many recommended a mixed format approach for intervention delivery (i.e., including dyadic and online sessions). Additionally, recommendations for participant recruitment included a combination of Internet-based and social network referrals.

Patient–Provider Communication Barriers and Facilitators to HIV and STI Preventive Services for Adolescent MSM

“…These findings may have implications for AMSM, who may not have access to other sources of sexual health information specific to their needs. For example, hetero-normative sexual health curricula and the paucity of educational and other resources specific to sexual minority youth 214647 likely limit AMSM’s knowledge and implementation of HIV/STI prevention strategies.…”

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…Although tacitly acknowledged as being an important issue, IPV in LGBT relationships has not been thoroughly studied or analyzed, which reveals its actual status as marginalized in research, policy, and treatment of IPV (for a review of empirical studies on IPV in LGBT partnerships, see Bernhard, 2000;Byrne, 1996;Finneran & Stephenson, 2014;Fortunata & Kohn, 2003;Glass et al, 2008;Greene, Fisher, Kuper, Andrews, & Mustanski, 2015;Heintz & Melendez, 2006;Letellier, 1994;Lie & Gentlewarrior, 1991;Merrill, 1996;Merrill & Wolfe, 2000;Murray, Mobley, Buford, & Searnan-DeJohn, 2006;Oswald, Fonseca, & Hardesty, 2010;Renzetti, 1992;Renzetti & Miley, 1996;Sorenson & Thomas, 2009;Turell, Herrmann, Hollander, & Galletly, 2012;Welles, Corbin, Rich, Reed, & Raj, 2011). As previously noted, the latest NISVS does not ask, and therefore does not collect data on, IPV in trans* identified people's relationships.…”

Come Along With Me: Linking LGBTQ Youth to Supportive Resources

“…Social media provided a safe, anonymous place to learn about others' coming out experiences with their families and also a place to rehearse new identities and roles. Participants in a study by Greene, Fisher, Kuper, Andrews, and Mustanski (2015) described how best to reach out to LGBTQ youth. The 72 ethnoculturally diverse participants in the study consistently recommended the use of positive, affirming symbols and messages to attract the interest of LGBTQ youth.…”