The Experiences of LGBTQ+ Pre-Service and Qualified Teachers and Their Mental Health: A Systematic Review of International Research

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors tackle a topic of significant importance - the mental health and professional experiences of LGBTQ+ educators. The paper builds a strong rationale for why this work matters, defining concepts like heteronormativity and the pressures LGBTQ+ teachers face. The international scope is commendable, and the systematic review methodology, including the use of a PRISMA framework, shows a commitment to rigor. A primary strength is the manuscript’s tangible contribution in the form of two new proposed frameworks, which offer clear and actionable recommendations for Initial Teacher Education programs.

While there is much to like about this manuscript, there are several concerns that I have:

- While this paper is submitted to the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, the topic - the experiences of LGBTQ+ pre-service teachers - is squarely and exclusively within the field of Education. While mental health is a key variable, the entire context, analysis, and implications relate to pedagogy, teacher training curricula, and school culture. The frameworks presented are for ITE programs, not public health interventions. This manuscript is an excellent fit for a journal in education, teacher training, or LGBTQ+ studies, but I do not see its fit for IJERPH.

- Further, the manuscript fails to deliver on “mental health”, a key concept from its own title. The term is invoked repeatedly, often to say that discrimination, concealment, or pressure can lead to mental ill-health, but there is no dedicated synthesis of what the 20 studies actually report on this topic. What specific mental health outcomes were measured or described? What interventions or support systems were identified in the data? This central concept is treated as an afterthought rather than a primary variable for analysis.

- The title, abstract, and rationale are built on the premise of reviewing research on pre-service teachers; however, the authors explicitly admit in the limitations that not all papers reviewed the experiences of pre-service teachers, and that they widened the focus to serving teachers. This is a major issue. More, a quick review of Table 7 illustrates that many of the 20 included studies focus partially or entirely on in-service teachers. This undermines the central claim of novelty and renders the findings less impactful. Beyond a sampling error, it presents a significant conceptual flaw. The power dynamics, professional precarity, and identity management strategies of a trainee on a temporary placement are fundamentally different from those of a contracted, in-service teacher. Lumping them together confuses the analysis and weakens the specificity of the conclusions.

- The methods section begins with a detailed analysis of four specific papers that were supposedly used to develop keywords. This is not a standard part of a systematic review protocol (like PRISMA) and feels like a post-hoc justification. More concerning is the screening process. The authors report 12,028 records and then exclude 9,812 for being “not focused on any aspect of RQs”, among other reasons. This massive cull is not transparently explained. Worse, the authors state, “We deliberately focused on significant studies that added to valuable perspectives and/or research data”. This is diametrically opposed to the process of a systematic review, which aims to be an exhaustive and unbiased synthesis of all available evidence, rather than just what the authors deem significant. Rather, this suggests the methodology is a narrative review disguised as a systematic one.

- The search strategy is highly suspect. For example, the Boolean logic presented for the ‘Mental health’ search term is nonsensical and would not yield relevant results. The justification for the 2013 date cutoff (claiming all prior international literature did not take account of applicable legislation) is an unsupported and implausible generalization. Additionally, the authors conduct a ‘Weight of Evidence’ appraisal but then never explain how this appraisal was used. The narrative synthesis appears to treat all 20 studies equally, regardless of whether their methodology was ‘Good’ or ‘Inadequate’, which defeats the purpose of a quality assessment.

- The review’s findings do not appear to map onto its research questions. For example, RQ3 asks, “How do LGBTQ+ pre-service teachers disrupt hetero/cis-normative cultures in schools?”. Yet, the summary of findings for this question states, “There was limited discussion across the 20 studies on the extent to which pre-service teachers were able to disrupt hetero/cis-normative school cultures”. If the included literature cannot answer a primary research question, it calls into question either the search strategy or the validity of the research question itself for a synthesis review.

- More broadly, the introduction presents a list of theories - Queer Theory, Intersectionality, Critical Pedagogy - but these frameworks are not used to synthesize the findings. They are described and then abandoned. The review lacks a guiding conceptual framework to organize the data from the 20 studies, resulting in the results section reading like a series of disconnected summaries rather than a synthesis.

- The results and discussion sections are highly redundant. Section 3 is not a presentation of synthesized results – e.g., “x number of studies found y”. Instead, it is a narrative discussion of the literature, quoting and summarizing individual papers (e.g., “Russell (2021) highlights...”). Section 4 repeats these same points. “The Role of Teacher Educators”, for example, re-articulates the findings on teacher-educator confidence already presented in Section 3. The manuscript needs to be restructured to have a clear results section that synthesizes the data from the 20 papers, followed by a separate discussion section that interprets those synthesized findings.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have uploaded a response to reviewers. 

Thank you. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines currently published literature on the perspectives of pre-service teachers who identify as LGBTQ.  It focuses on a framework to support inclusive queer teacher education.  Research historically focuses on LGBTQ youth and how teachers impact student learning, so focusing on the pre-service teachers who are queer and how their training impacts them is a novel approach.      You clearly identify the lack of research in this area and seem to have captured the available current international research searchable online.  Your references are solid.  It is very helpful to read your conclusions and suggestions for next steps to improve research and information available in this area.  The ITE framework you provide is clearly tied to your results from the review.    Here are a few suggestions to improve the clarity and readability of your manuscript.    

• In Table 1,  I suggest you combine this into a table that compares the articles on the key themes.  Table 1 reads like an annotated bibliography, but the purpose of a systemic review is to compare/contrast information for the reader.  You might take Table 7 and expand it to include the information from Table 1.
• I suggest creating a table with columns for Overview, Methods, Strengths, Limitations to compare the list of articles reviewed in one table.  The full reference needs to be added only in the references list; in-text citation format is enough to identify the information in your tables. 
• Then focus on the specific themes and what we learn from the currently available research.  The discussion you provide is very helpful.  You focus on what we need to add to the literature, what more needs to be researched is important and should be expanded. That is the primary focus of a literature review - to identify what is missing and where we need to encourage further research.  
• Figure 2 is unnecessary and takes up space in the article.  The information is in the table.
• Tables 12-16 are extraneous.  You state the information in subsequent paragraphs, so do not take up space with a table of one line.  
• Combine lines 823-833 into one point about self-reflection.  Identity and personal values are something all teachers need to examine, not just queer teachers. In fact, the reverse might also be considered to ensure that queer teachers do not appear to groom or recruit students to queerness. This is often a complaint in the United States. I suggest you address this in the article.  We want teachers that are inclusive of ALL students regardless of sexual orientation and gender identity, race, physical and mental abilities, etc...  Be careful to focus on the inclusivity aspect throughout the paper as this should be the true focus, not including queer topics in teaching practices.  
• Lines 628-630 seem to be the essence of your argument for this paper:  Increasing the visibility of marginal identities on teacher education programmes fosters a sense of belonging and supports the development of a strong teacher identity (McKay & Manning, 2019).
• The search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria can be summarized in paragraph form instead of a table to save space. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript and uploaded a response to reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting and worthwhile paper – there are not many papers which take on systematic reviews of this topic area and to my knowledge there are no others examining this for pre-service teachers.

There are many strengths to the paper, it is coherently written, well-structured and the research design is effectively carried out.

The findings are very relevant. And the proposed framework for ITE providers is potentially a very good idea – some ideas in here are very worthwhile, including the institutions commitment and the support for LGBT pre-service teachers.

 

However, I have some queries about the intricacies of the paper. Including the use of theory, the judgement of other papers, the use of agency particularly and the tone of the paper. More specifically:

 

Suggested Corrections/ Amendments:

 

1. Whilst the introduction does present different aspects and does provide a good rationale, and the second discussion of disruptive heteronormative does bring the work up to date– there is arguably a victim or passive framing, that does not give any agency to LGBT teachers.

 

2. I would reference more identity management strategies – there is a lot of historic and recent work on this. The ‘identities under construction’, is a great point.

 

3. How do the frameworks work together, when some are in conflict – ie queer theory and a concept like intersectionality (or Crenshaws use of it) that utilises categories – or any others that utilise categories. Is this the framework you are using – or the ones that the papers you are critiquing have drawn on? There an awful lot of complex, and at times contrasting, theories here.

 

4. The critiques in the systematic review has a positivist framing, which does follow norms of a systematic review – however, this arguably does not show an appreciation of the articles in terms of what they were aiming to do, or of the approach or theories that are were engaged with. For example, scholars using queer theory and critical theory would not be aiming for methods such as triangulation. Or generalizability of the findings? – I suggest that acknowledging the complexities of this before the systematic review, could improve the paper.

 

5. Can you say more about how the theoretical framework relates to the analysis?

 

6. RQ1 There seems to be a conflation between agency and autonomy, The first two lines of the Agency section attest to this – ie people can have agency in any situation,  but not necessarily autonomy. (see point 1)

 

7. RQ1 I would also expand the Discrimination section - kind of discrimination?

 

8. How does a discourse of performativity relate to agency? – people always have some constrained agency ? Ie is ‘trapped’ too strong a word?

 

9. Is it worth mentioning the (not really) new requirement for teachers to be ‘politically impartial’ in the UK. Even as a nod to the future, or changing climate?

 

10. Whilst the discussion has some interesting ideas about pre-service programme – and it mentions stressors, it does not go back to the ‘dilemmas’ of the LGBT teacher – such as the complexities or expectations being a role model or the ‘pressure to be ‘out’.

 

11. 6 Intersectionality and Diverse Experiences – needs literature to support claims

 

12. For 7. Implications for Policy and Practice, whilst interesting ideas, not all seems to clearly relate to the research reviewed. Could it be made clearer where the ideas are from? Wider literature? Or is it a revisited development of previous work? [if this is true, I think this is I worth acknowledging this]

 

One of the tensions in the paper is tonally it seems to be trying to work between positivist and more subjective work, and between psychological framings and queer theory – hence the language and tone is not always consistent. And it means that theories seem to be used without depth. I am not convinced that you can move from such contrasting ideas without a depth of consideration. Which perhaps shows in how agency is used.

 

Best wishes for any revisions.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the manuscript and uploaded a response to reviewers. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' effort put into revising the manuscript. The revisions demonstrate a willingness to engage with the feedback. However, substantial concerns regarding the systematic nature of the methodology and the depth of the analysis remain:

- A primary concern is the description of the screening process. You state that you deliberately focused on significant studies that added valuable perspectives or research data. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of a systematic review, which demands an exhaustive and unbiased synthesis of all literature meeting the inclusion criteria, not only those deemed significant by the researchers. This phrasing suggests a selection bias more characteristic of a narrative or critical review.

- While the title now acknowledges the inclusion of qualified teachers, the analysis continues to conflate their experiences with those of pre-service teachers. In the results, findings from qualified teachers are presented alongside those from pre-service teachers, without sufficiently distinguishing the unique power dynamics and professional precarity of the latter. Although you acknowledge this conflation as a limitation, the synthesis itself does not adequately separate the data to support distinct conclusions for pre-service teachers, which was the paper's original novelty.

- The new mental health section lists stressors such as anxiety, psychological pressure, and distress. However, this remains a surface-level description of emotional states reported in educational contexts. A systematic review should ideally synthesize specific mental health outcomes, clinical measures, or the effectiveness of interventions, rather than listing general descriptors of stress.

- The methodology section retains the analysis of four initial papers to inform the selection of keywords. This remains a non-standard step for a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and appears as a post-hoc justification for the search strategy rather than a rigorous protocol development process.

- The exclusion of over 9,000 records is mainly attributed to their failure to focus on the research questions. Given the broad initial search results, a more transparent explanation of how these exclusion criteria were applied is necessary to demonstrate reproducibility.

Author Response

Comment 1: A primary concern is the description of the screening process. You state that you deliberately focused on significant studies that added valuable perspectives or research data. This approach contradicts the fundamental principles of a systematic review, which demands an exhaustive and unbiased synthesis of all literature meeting the inclusion criteria, not only those deemed significant by the researchers. This phrasing suggests a selection bias more characteristic of a narrative or critical review.

Response 1: Now clarified that we selected studies which met the inclusion criteria

 

Comment 2: While the title now acknowledges the inclusion of qualified teachers, the analysis continues to conflate their experiences with those of pre-service teachers. In the results, findings from qualified teachers are presented alongside those from pre-service teachers, without sufficiently distinguishing the unique power dynamics and professional precarity of the latter. Although you acknowledge this conflation as a limitation, the synthesis itself does not adequately separate the data to support distinct conclusions for pre-service teachers, which was the paper's original novelty.

Response 2: In the section on queering, we have highlighted the specific issues that are relevant to pre-service teachers, including differential power due to their status as a student teacher and we have also highlighted this in other sections.

 

Comment 3: The new mental health section lists stressors such as anxiety, psychological pressure, and distress. However, this remains a surface-level description of emotional states reported in educational contexts. A systematic review should ideally synthesize specific mental health outcomes, clinical measures, or the effectiveness of interventions, rather than listing general descriptors of stress.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment. However, we are not examining mental health outcomes, but rather their experiences of mental health.

 

Comment 4: The methodology section retains the analysis of four initial papers to inform the selection of keywords. This remains a non-standard step for a PRISMA-compliant systematic review and appears as a post-hoc justification for the search strategy rather than a rigorous protocol development process.

Response 4: We have addressed this by explaining that the analysis of the 4 papers was not part of the systematic review process but that it provided us with useful background contextual information prior to undertaking the systematic review.

 

Comment 5: The exclusion of over 9,000 records is mainly attributed to their failure to focus on the research questions. Given the broad initial search results, a more transparent explanation of how these exclusion criteria were applied is necessary to demonstrate reproducibility.

Response 5: Clarified to say articles did not meet the inclusion criteria. Articles did not meet the inclusion criteria when they were applied, not peer reviewed, weak methodology, does not meet date range.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am happy that the authors have made all of the corrections cited, and I agree they have improved the article. 

Thank you for making the corrections stand out clearly, to make the reviewing process straightforward.

There seems to be one odd paragraph spacing /typo on page 2 (after "falls"- which I am sure can be corrected before publication 

Best wishes

Author Response

Comment 1: I am happy that the authors have made all of the corrections cited, and I agree they have improved the article.

Thank you for making the corrections stand out clearly, to make the reviewing process straightforward.

There seems to be one odd paragraph spacing /typo on page 2 (after

"falls"- which I am sure can be corrected before publication

Response 1: Thank you for your positive feedback.