| Autor: |
Klein LB; Sandra Rosenbaum School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.; Prevention Innovations Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA., Dawes HC; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA., James G; Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA., Hall WJ; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA., Rizo CF; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA., Potter SJ; Prevention Innovations Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA., Martin SL; Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA., Macy RJ; School of Social Work, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. |
| Abstrakt: |
Although there has been increased attention to campus sexual and relationship violence (SRV) because of Title IX and the #MeToo movement, much of that attention has focused on victimization of cisgender heterosexual women. This scoping review uncovers information from empirical studies on what is known about LGBTQ+ (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and nonbinary) students' experiences of campus SRV. Using rigorous scoping review methods (i.e., searches of 15 databases, searches of expert websites, hand searching, reference harvesting, and forward citation chaining), we identified 60 documents published since 2000 that contained findings from empirical studies related to LGBTQ+ students and SRV on U.S. college and university campuses. Through content analysis, we summarized findings around five key themes: (1) extent and types of victimization, (2) negative outcomes, (3) knowledge of and attitudes about SRV, (4) perspectives on SRV services and prevention education programs, and (5) recommendations from study authors based on their findings. Implications for research, practice, and policy based on these findings are discussed. |
