Jeremy T Goldbach1, Harmony Rhoades1, Daniel Green1, Anthony Fulginiti2, Michael P Marshal3. 1. 1 Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. 2 Graduate School of Social Work, University of Denver, CO, USA. 3. 3 Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide than their peers. Although LGBT-specific crisis services have been developed, little is known about the need for these services beyond that of general lifeline services. Aims: The present study sought to (a) describe the primary reasons for calling a specialized provider as opposed to another and (b) examine sociodemographic differences in the primary reason by race, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Method: Data from 657 youth who sought crisis services from an LGBT-specific national service provider in the United States were assessed. Logistic regression models assessed demographic differences. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses regarding reasons for choosing this LGBT-specific crisis service provider followed a consensus model. Results: Most respondents indicated they either would not have contacted another helpline (26%) or were not sure (48%). Nearly half (42%) indicated they called specifically because of LGBT-affirming counselors, a reason more commonly reported by gender minority (transgender and gender nonbinary) and queer or pansexual youth than cisgender, gay, or lesbian youth. Conclusion: LGBT-specific crisis services appear to play an important role in suicide prevention. Further research is needed to understand the use of culturally tailored suicide prevention approaches.
Background: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) youth are more than twice as likely to attempt suicide than their peers. Although LGBT-specific crisis services have been developed, little is known about the need for these services beyond that of general lifeline services. Aims: The present study sought to (a) describe the primary reasons for calling a specialized provider as opposed to another and (b) examine sociodemographic differences in the primary reason by race, ethnicity, gender, age, and sexual orientation. Method: Data from 657 youth who sought crisis services from an LGBT-specific national service provider in the United States were assessed. Logistic regression models assessed demographic differences. Thematic analysis of open-ended responses regarding reasons for choosing this LGBT-specific crisis service provider followed a consensus model. Results: Most respondents indicated they either would not have contacted another helpline (26%) or were not sure (48%). Nearly half (42%) indicated they called specifically because of LGBT-affirming counselors, a reason more commonly reported by gender minority (transgender and gender nonbinary) and queer or pansexual youth than cisgender, gay, or lesbian youth. Conclusion: LGBT-specific crisis services appear to play an important role in suicide prevention. Further research is needed to understand the use of culturally tailored suicide prevention approaches.
Keywords:
LGBT youth; crisis services; suicide prevention
Authors: Adam G Horwitz; Johnny Berona; Danielle R Busby; Daniel Eisenberg; Kai Zheng; Jacqueline Pistorello; Ronald Albucher; William Coryell; Todd Favorite; Joseph C Walloch; Cheryl A King Journal: Suicide Life Threat Behav Date: 2020-04-15