(PS8-35) Considerations for Tailoring Intimate Partner Violence Prevention Programs for Sexual and Gender Minority Emerging Adults

Background: Preventative initiatives for intimate partner violence (IPV; physical and emotional violence against a romantic partner) are essential for sexual and gender minority individuals assigned female at birth (SGM-AFAB), who are disproportionately affected. IPV prevention programs (IPVPP) are one strategy that have shown efficacy with cisgender, heterosexual emerging adults; however, SGM emerging adults (SGMEA) participate at low rates. Understanding factors that impact SGMEA’s likelihood of participating in tailored IPVPP may inform culturally-responsive IPV prevention strategies. Toward that goal, we aim to identify facilitators and barriers to SGM-AFAB's IPVPP participation.  

Method: The sample is 38 SGM-AFAB people (ages 18 – 32 years; 34% Black, 32% Latine, 29% White, 5% Multiracial) who have experienced physical, sexual, or severe psychological IPV. In a semi-structured interview, we asked participants about factors that may impact their participation in a tailored IPVPP. We used inductive coding reliability thematic analysis to identify codes in their responses and develop themes, which informed our creation of analytic narratives to describe SGM-AFAB individuals’ perspectives and ideas, using their own words.  

Results: Qualitative analyses resulted in several considerations for tailoring IPVPP for SGMEA. (1) Participants identified many population–specific barriers to participating in IPVPP, including not recognizing IPV due to heteronormative definitions of IPV and fears of being outed – both generally outed as SGM and being outed to their SGM peers as IPV victims. Participants said online IPVPP may mitigate these barriers. (2) Participants expressed the value of engaging LGBTQ+ community members and organizations in tailored IPVPP recruitment and delivery, saying that they would respond better to material delivered by individuals who shared their intersectional identities (e.g., racial, sexual, and gender). (3) Participants described systemic contextual features that may impact their IPV experiences and expressed their desire for functional and mental health companion resources outside of IPVPP efforts.  

Conclusion: Centering the voices of SGM-AFAB, these findings provide valuable data to inform efforts to support SGMEA who may experience IPV and improve their likelihood of participating in tailored IPVPP. To address common barriers related to fear of being outed and not recognizing abuse, marketing materials should emphasize confidentiality of participation and define IPV in non-heteronormative terms. Online IPVPP may mitigate barriers related to outing and privacy concerns. Collaboration with local LGBTQ+ organizations, including involving LGBTQ+ community members as IPVPP facilitators, may enhance recruitment efforts and program engagement. Although SGMEA’s identified companion resources may be out of scope for a tailored IPVPP, they provide valuable insight into factors that may impact their ability to participate in IPVPP. Program developers may consider connecting SGMEA with these companion resources (e.g., affordable mental health care) or providing financial scaffolding before presenting IPVPP content, to enhance SGMEA’s treatment gains when they do engage in IPVPP.