A Mixed Methods Study of Barriers to Help-Seeking for Intimate Partner Aggression in the LGBTQIA+ Community.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Interpersonal Violence Pub Date : 2024-08-26 DOI:10.1177/08862605241270045
Chelsea R D'Cruz, Matthew D Hammond, Louise Dixon
{"title":"A Mixed Methods Study of Barriers to Help-Seeking for Intimate Partner Aggression in the LGBTQIA+ Community.","authors":"Chelsea R D'Cruz, Matthew D Hammond, Louise Dixon","doi":"10.1177/08862605241270045","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>People in the LGBTQIA+ community (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other gender/sexual minorities) experience greater rates of intimate partner aggression (IPA) than the general population and have fewer help-seeking pathways available. The current research examined the extent to which LGBTQIA+ people's perceptions of barriers to help-seeking were associated with perceptions of societal heteronormativity-the belief that being cisgender and heterosexual is the norm-and whether the source of support was formal (e.g., police, counselors) versus informal (e.g., friends, family). The current research was conducted in two parts. In the first part of the study (Study 1a), structural equation modeling indicated a significant positive association between perceived societal heteronormativity and self-focused barriers (e.g., feeling too ashamed or guilty to seek help) but not with other-focused barriers (e.g., expecting unfair treatment). Instead, LGBTQIA+ people perceived greater other-focused barriers when considering formal compared to informal sources of support. In the second part of the study (Study 1b), we interviewed 10 LGBTQIA+ people about barriers to help-seeking for IPA. A reflexive thematic analysis identified four themes: (1) Who can hold the status of being a \"victim\"?; (2) The heightened importance of autonomy; (3) Formal supports need LGBTQIA+ competency; and (4) Judged by the outside in. The themes illustrated unique barriers experienced by LGBTQIA+ people when judging possible harm, choosing whether to seek help, and actual help-seeking. Altogether, current help-seeking pathways for IPA are generally inaccessible to people in the LGBTQIA+ community. IPA interventions for the LGBTQIA+ community require awareness of stigma, improved education for informal and formal support pathways, and the development of community-led interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241270045","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

People in the LGBTQIA+ community (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and other gender/sexual minorities) experience greater rates of intimate partner aggression (IPA) than the general population and have fewer help-seeking pathways available. The current research examined the extent to which LGBTQIA+ people's perceptions of barriers to help-seeking were associated with perceptions of societal heteronormativity-the belief that being cisgender and heterosexual is the norm-and whether the source of support was formal (e.g., police, counselors) versus informal (e.g., friends, family). The current research was conducted in two parts. In the first part of the study (Study 1a), structural equation modeling indicated a significant positive association between perceived societal heteronormativity and self-focused barriers (e.g., feeling too ashamed or guilty to seek help) but not with other-focused barriers (e.g., expecting unfair treatment). Instead, LGBTQIA+ people perceived greater other-focused barriers when considering formal compared to informal sources of support. In the second part of the study (Study 1b), we interviewed 10 LGBTQIA+ people about barriers to help-seeking for IPA. A reflexive thematic analysis identified four themes: (1) Who can hold the status of being a "victim"?; (2) The heightened importance of autonomy; (3) Formal supports need LGBTQIA+ competency; and (4) Judged by the outside in. The themes illustrated unique barriers experienced by LGBTQIA+ people when judging possible harm, choosing whether to seek help, and actual help-seeking. Altogether, current help-seeking pathways for IPA are generally inaccessible to people in the LGBTQIA+ community. IPA interventions for the LGBTQIA+ community require awareness of stigma, improved education for informal and formal support pathways, and the development of community-led interventions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关于 LGBTQIA+ 群体中亲密伴侣侵犯求助障碍的混合方法研究。
LGBTQIA+ 群体(即女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者、同性恋者、双性者、无性恋者和其他性别/性少数群体)比普通人群遭受亲密伴侣侵犯(IPA)的比例更高,而且可寻求帮助的途径更少。目前的研究探讨了 LGBTQIA+ 人对求助障碍的看法在多大程度上与对社会异性恋规范性的看法相关--社会异性恋规范性认为顺性别和异性恋才是规范--以及支持来源是正式的(如警察、咨询师)还是非正式的(如朋友、家人)。目前的研究分两部分进行。在研究的第一部分(研究 1a)中,结构方程建模表明,感知到的社会异性恋与以自我为中心的障碍(如感到羞耻或内疚而不敢寻求帮助)之间存在显著的正相关,但与以其他为中心的障碍(如期待不公平待遇)之间没有显著的正相关。相反,与非正式的支持来源相比,LGBTQIA+人群在考虑正式的支持来源时更多地感受到了其他方面的障碍。在研究的第二部分(研究 1b)中,我们采访了 10 位 LGBTQIA+ 人士,了解他们在寻求 IPA 帮助时遇到的障碍。通过反思性主题分析,我们确定了四个主题:(1)谁能拥有 "受害者 "的地位;(2)自主权的重要性;(3)正式支持需要 LGBTQIA+ 的能力;以及(4)外界的评判。这些主题说明了 LGBTQIA+ 在判断可能的伤害、选择是否寻求帮助以及实际寻求帮助时所遇到的独特障碍。总之,LGBTQIA+群体普遍无法获得当前IPA的求助途径。针对 LGBTQIA+ 群体的 IPA 干预措施需要提高对污名化的认识,加强对非正式和正式支持途径的教育,并制定社区主导的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
期刊最新文献
Lifetime Abuse: Theoretical and Empirical Research. Interpersonal Violence Against Indigenous Sámi and Non-Sámi Populations in Arctic Sweden and the Mediating Effect of Historical Losses and Discrimination. Rethinking Lifetime Abuse in Old Age. Childhood Maltreatment, Revictimization, and Partner Violence Victimization Through Midlife: A Prospective Longitudinal Investigation. Trauma Theory and Abuse, Neglect and Violence Across the Life Course.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1