D'Cruz Chelsea R, Hammond Matthew D, Dixon Louise
Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
J Interpers Violence. 2025 May;40(9-10):2163-2187. doi: 10.1177/08862605241270045. Epub 2024 Aug 26.
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.
女同性恋、男同性恋、双性恋、跨性别者、酷儿、双性人、无性恋者及其他性取向/性别少数群体（LGBTQIA+）遭受亲密伴侣暴力（IPA）的比例高于普通人群，且可获得的求助途径较少。当前研究探讨了LGBTQIA+群体对求助障碍的认知与社会异性恋规范观念（即认为顺性别和异性恋是常态的观念）之间的关联程度，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）。当前研究分为两个部分。在研究的第一部分（研究1a）中，结构方程模型表明，感知到的社会异性恋规范与自我关注的障碍（如因过于羞愧或内疚而不愿寻求帮助）之间存在显著正相关，但与他人关注的障碍（如预期会受到不公平对待）无关。相反，与非正式支持来源相比，LGBTQIA+群体在考虑正式支持来源时，感知到的他人关注的障碍更大。在研究的第二部分（研究1b）中，我们采访了10名LGBTQIA+群体成员，了解他们在寻求针对IPA的帮助时遇到的障碍。反思性主题分析确定了四个主题：（1）谁能拥有“受害者”身份？；（2）自主权的重要性增加；（3）正式支持需要具备LGBTQIA+能力；（4）被外界评判。这些主题说明了LGBTQIA+群体在判断可能的伤害、选择是否寻求帮助以及实际寻求帮助时所面临的独特障碍。总体而言，LGBTQIA+群体目前通常无法获得针对IPA的求助途径。针对LGBTQIA+群体的IPA干预措施需要认识到污名化问题，改善对非正式和正式支持途径的教育，并开展社区主导的干预措施。
