↓ Skip to main content

“Is This Normal? Is This Not Normal? There Is No Set Example”: Sexual Health Intervention Preferences of LGBT Youth in Romantic Relationships

Overview of attention for article published in Sexuality Research and Social Policy, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
47 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
252 Mendeley
Title
“Is This Normal? Is This Not Normal? There Is No Set Example”: Sexual Health Intervention Preferences of LGBT Youth in Romantic Relationships
Published in
Sexuality Research and Social Policy, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s13178-014-0169-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

George J. Greene, Kimberly A. Fisher, Laura Kuper, Rebecca Andrews, Brian Mustanski

Abstract

Limited research has examined the romantic relationships of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth (LGBT) despite evidence of relationship-oriented risks, including STI/HIV infection, unplanned pregnancy, and interpersonal violence. In efforts to inform future dyadic sexual health interventions for LGBT youth, this couples-based study aimed to identify the most salient sexual and relationships concerns of young same-sex couples and to assess their preferences for intervention content and format. Participants were a subset 36 young, racially and ethnically diverse, same-sex couples (N = 72 individuals) recruited from two on-going longitudinal studies. Interviews were coded using a constant comparison method and a process of inductive and deductive thematic analysis was used to interpret the data. The analysis yielded the following intervention themes: addressing sexual risk and protective behaviors, improving communication, coping with family and relationship violence, and identifying role models and sources of support. The couples reported a clear preference for small group interventions and many recommended a mixed format approach for intervention delivery (i.e., including dyadic and online sessions). Additionally, recommendations for participant recruitment included a combination of Internet-based and social network referrals.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 252 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 249 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 15%
Student > Bachelor 37 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 22 9%
Researcher 22 9%
Other 29 12%
Unknown 73 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 24%
Social Sciences 40 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 8%
Unspecified 7 3%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 83 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 April 2022.
All research outputs
#8,683,064
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Sexuality Research and Social Policy
#332
of 601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,220
of 258,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Sexuality Research and Social Policy
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 601 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,619 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.