4.2 Review

Psychosocial Risk and Protective Factors for Depression Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer Youth: A Systematic Review

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY
Volume 65, Issue 3, Pages 263-316

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2017.1317467

Keywords

Bisexual; depression; gay; lesbian; psychosocial factors; queer; risk and protective factors; youth

Funding

  1. National Institute of Mental Health - Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine [T32 MH019117]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [T32MH019117] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many lesbian, gay, bisexual, or queer (LGBQ) youth suffer from depression. Identifying modifiable risk and protective factors for depression can inform the development of psychosocial interventions. The aim of this review is to evaluate the methodological characteristics and summarize the substantive findings of studies examining psychosocial risk and protective factors for depression among LGBQ youth. Eight bibliographic databases were searched, and 35 studies that met all inclusion criteria were included for review. Results show that prominent risk factors for depression include internalized LGBQ-related oppression, stress from hiding and managing a socially stigmatized identity, maladaptive coping, parental rejection, abuse and other traumatic events, negative interpersonal interactions, negative religious experiences, school bullying victimization, and violence victimization in community settings. Prominent protective factors include a positive LGBQ identity, self-esteem, social support from friends, and family support. LGBQ youth may face an array of threats to their mental health originating from multiple socioecological levels.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available