“Share Your Trauma… and Make It Funny”: Comedy as Catharsis and Community-Building in LGBTQ+ Mental Wellbeing and Resilience

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The findings of this study are well described and easily applicable. Many important constructs are mentioned, and the paper would be enhanced by a more systematic discussion of the research literature that contextualizes the findings. There is a body of literature on the benefits of humor as a coping strategy, for example. Terms like “catharsis” and “resilience” can also be supported by a review of research literature. It may be that catharsis is not the precise term that applies here, for example. The importance of community and social support is well-established, and it would be important to cover that body of empirical work. Minority stress is referenced without proper citation or description.

Author Response

1a. The findings of this study are well described and easily applicable. 

Thank you so much for acknowledging this and we are delighted that the study shows value and utility

1b. Many important constructs are mentioned, and the paper would be enhanced by a more systematic discussion of the research literature that contextualizes the findings. Terms like “catharsis” and “resilience” can also be supported by a review of research literature. It may be that catharsis is not the precise term that applies here, for example. The importance of community and social support is well-established, and it would be important to cover that body of empirical work.

We thank the reviewers for highlighting areas where several key concepts would benefit from further clarification and theoretical contextualisation. We agree that some of these important concepts were underdeveloped in the original manuscript. In response, we have substantially expanded the introduction to provide greater conceptual and empirical grounding for the intervention:
(Catharsis) The truism that “laughter is the best medicine” has often been conceptualised through the notion of comic catharsis (Scheff & Scheeie, 2014). Originating in classical theories of theatre, catharsis broadly refers to the emotional processing and transformation that occurs through engagement with dramatic performance (e.g., Reckford, 1974; Westwood, 2004). (Lines 70-73)
(Resilience) Resilience broadly refers to the capacity to adapt positively to adversity and main-tain psychological functioning in the face of challenge (e.g., Breakwell, 2021). Through comedy, then, resilience may operate at multiple levels. At an individual level, the process of transforming difficult experiences into humorous narratives may facilitate emotional processing, cognitive reappraisal, and psychological resilience (Barnes, 2025). Yet socially, stand-up comedy is an inherently relational and dialogic art form (Brodie, 2014; Mintz, 1985), thus, it is plausible that belonging, mutual support, and collective resilience through shared experiences and communal laughter. (Lines 97-104)
(Community & Social Connectedness) This development is unsurprising given the extensive literature demonstrating the im-portance of community belonging, social support, and social connectedness for LGBTQ+ mental health. Research consistently shows that connection to affirming communities can buffer the effects of minority stress and promote psychological well-being among sexual and gender minorities (e.g., Gifford & Jaspal, 2026; Hammack et al., 2024; Jaspal, 2025; Meyer, 2015). Importantly, these benefits are not unique to come-dy-based interventions. Rather, comedy forms part of a growing body of scholarship recognising the arts as valuable mechanisms for community building and social support (Chappell et al., 2021; Fancourt, 2017; Stickley & Hui, 2012; White et al., 2021). (Lines 116-124)

 

1c. Minority stress is referenced without proper citation or description.

We acknowledge this oversight. To provide stronger theoretical grounding, we have expanded the introduction to include a discussion of Minority Stress Theory (Meyer, 2003):

This pattern is explained by Minority Stress Theory, originally proposed by Meyer (2003), which posits that sexual and gender minorities experience unique and chronic stressors associated with their marginalised social status. These stressors include distal stressors, such as experiences of prejudice, discrimination, and victimisation, as well as proximal stressors, including expectations of rejection, concealment of identity, and in-ternalised stigma (lines 53-58)

We have also incorporated recent work by Frost and Meyer (2023), which reflects on the continued relevance of minority stress processes in shaping LGBTQ+ mental health outcomes. These additions help situate the rationale for the intervention within a broader body of empirical and theoretical literature concerning LGBTQ+ wellbeing.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research reflects a much needed deviation from the traditional (and no less important!) mental health intervention known as group therapy. It is just as important to localize queer joy and community as part of healing as it is to identify and address suffering. Further, this offers an important avenue for community healing that doesn't imbue pathology. For even with our greatest efforts as mental health clinicians, offering support and recovery from sociocultural harms, we are still left with our typical standards of practice, including diagnostic coding and medicalized care. 

My feedback and comments are minimal, but I do think will help facilitate transparency with the analyses. Missing in their discussion of reflexivity (2.4) were their identities and potential biases with respect to the intervention and potential outcomes. I encourage the author's to include standpoint epistemology in their reflexivity framework, including salient identities as well as power, e.g., were all involved faculty, were any graduate students? If this was not part of the discussion with respect to construction of the program or process of analysis, then it is worth addressing why it was not and how this may have influenced the research as a whole. 

Additionally, how were disagreements identified and amended during the iterative coding process? A "research team" is referenced, but I am unclear if this team is comprised of the first two authors or all listed in authorship (from the author contributions, it seems the first two?). Was there an auditor who could weigh in during disputes. It would be useful to include reflections on how power within the research team was treated as part of the coding process. 

Lastly, data and discussion about race is missing. Please include information on racial demographics. I think it would be worth noting how race was or was not accounted for in the methods, e.g., is this absent as all members were white? What does this mean for the discussion and implications? 

 

Author Response

2a. This research reflects a much needed deviation from the traditional (and no less important!) mental health intervention known as group therapy. It is just as important to localize queer joy and community as part of healing as it is to identify and address suffering. Further, this offers an important avenue for community healing that doesn't imbue pathology. For even with our greatest efforts as mental health clinicians, offering support and recovery from sociocultural harms, we are still left with our typical standards of practice, including diagnostic coding and medicalized care.

Thank you for these kind words. We really do agree that embedding queer joy into the community is so important and should be explored through multiple mediums, not just, of course, traditional therapeutic routes. However, we would also acknowledge here, that in answering some other reviewers comments, we have strengthened our rationale and tempered some language to offer a more balanced report of our work. 

 

2b. My feedback and comments are minimal, but I do think will help facilitate transparency with the analyses. Missing in their discussion of reflexivity (2.4) were their identities and potential biases with respect to the intervention and potential outcomes. I encourage the author's to include standpoint epistemology in their reflexivity framework, including salient identities as well as power, e.g., were all involved faculty, were any graduate students? If this was not part of the discussion with respect to construction of the program or process of analysis, then it is worth addressing why it was not and how this may have influenced the research as a whole.

Thank you for this constructive comment and we have now expanded section 2.4. to ensure acknowledgment of these important reflections:

Reflexivity is widely recognised as a core component of rigorous qualitative re-search, requiring ongoing consideration of researcher positionality and its influence on the research process. The present study was situated within a critical realist perspective, which acknowledges the existence of an external reality whilst recognising that our understanding of that reality is inevitably mediated through social, cultural, and his-torical contexts (Braun & Clarke, 2023). It is also pertinent to acknowledge the position-ality of the research team. All authors identify as White, queer and are cisgender (three men and one woman). These social locations inevitably shaped the lenses through which the data were interpreted.
Beyond salient identities, it is also important to acknowledge the power dynamics operating within both the intervention and research process. Two members of the re-search team (AG and RB) were directly involved in the design and delivery of the “LGBTQteehee!” programme. Furthermore, the lead author (AG) facilitated the pro-gramme and conducted the interviews. While this position likely contributed to the depth and richness of the data by facilitating rapport and trust with participants, it also introduced the potential for bias, particularly where there may be a tendency, con-scious or otherwise, to privilege more positive accounts of the intervention.
To address this, the analytic process was conducted collaboratively. A second re-searcher (KA), who was not involved in the delivery of the programme, played a key role in coding and theme development, while DM provided supervisory oversight throughout the analytic process. It is also pertinent to acknowledge that AG, KA, and DM occupy different positions within the academic hierarchy. Although all were members of faculty, KA and DM held more senior positions than AG. These differing perspectives and institutional positions facilitated constructive challenge and critical discussion during analysis, creating opportunities to interrogate assumptions and minimise the influence of any single analytic perspective.
This collaborative process provided a degree of analytical distance while main-taining sensitivity to the experiences of LGBTQ+ participants and the wider aims of the intervention. Through this reflexive approach, we sought to balance insider knowledge and contextual understanding with critical scrutiny, thereby supporting a nuanced and credible interpretation of participants’ accounts. (Lines 225-253)

 

2c. Additionally, how were disagreements identified and amended during the iterative coding process? A "research team" is referenced, but I am unclear if this team is comprised of the first two authors or all listed in authorship (from the author contributions, it seems the first two?). Was there an auditor who could weigh in during disputes. It would be useful to include reflections on how power within the research team was treated as part of the coding process.

Thank you for highlighting this. We have now been more explicit within section 2.3. to clearly state the roles each author had within the analytic process. This was also in line with other reviewer comments (4b). We have also addressed some of these points within response 2c.

 

2d. Lastly, data and discussion about race is missing. Please include information on racial demographics. I think it would be worth noting how race was or was not accounted for in the methods, e.g., is this absent as all members were white? What does this mean for the discussion and implications?

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important issue. We have now included the ethnic composition of the participant sample within the manuscript and expanded our discussion of its implications. Whilst intersections between race, ethnicity, and LGBTQ+ identities were discussed within the programme, the limited ethnic diversity of the sample meant that we were unable to meaningfully explore these experiences within the present study. We have therefore acknowledged this as a limitation and caution against assuming that the findings reflect the experiences of all LGBTQ+ communities. Furthermore, we recommend that future iterations of the programme and its evaluation consider how more ethnically diverse groups may be engaged and supported to participate, enabling a fuller exploration of the intersections between race, ethnicity, queerness, and mental wellbeing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that through this qualitative research—applying a 10-week resilience-enhancing stand-up comedy program to relieve stress and promote mental health and well-being for LGBTQ+ individuals, and interviewing six participants to explore its effects—we have produced information and knowledge that are valuable both academically and clinically in mental health. I believe there will be no major issues with publication in an academic journal if the manuscript is further refined and the limitations of this study are clearly stated. The areas where I would like to suggest improvements to this manuscript are as follows:

 

 

1. In the introduction, you must summarize the progress of research related to this study and explain to what extent and how this study can fill the research gap.

 

2. In addition, it is necessary to present the rationale on how this type of therapeutic approach can enhance the mental resilience of LGBTQ+ individuals through specific methods.

 

3. Why was quantitative verification of the program not attempted after its implementation? Is the plan to conduct qualitative analysis after verifying the results through quantitative research?

 

4. The stage numbering of Reflexive Thematic Analysis introduced starting from line 158, 1., 2., and 3., overlaps with the numbering of method 2., which is the higher number in this journal.

 

5. It is necessary to describe in detail the semi-structured questions used during the interview.

 

6. It is recommended to change "3. Findings" to "3. Results".

 

7. Some of the findings in this study seem to be topics or content that even I, who did not conduct the research, could simply predict.

 

8. Based on the results of this study, please provide more specific clinical (interventional) or socio-policy implications or suggestions.

Author Response

3a. I believe that through this qualitative research—applying a 10-week resilience-enhancing stand-up comedy program to relieve stress and promote mental health and well-being for LGBTQ+ individuals, and interviewing six participants to explore its effects—we have produced information and knowledge that are valuable both academically and clinically in mental health. I believe there will be no major issues with publication in an academic journal if the manuscript is further refined and the limitations of this study are clearly stated.

We thank the reviewer for these encouraging comments and for recognising the potential academic and clinical value of this work. We have carefully considered and addressed the recommendations provided, alongside those of the other reviewers, and have substantially revised the manuscript accordingly. We have strengthened the theoretical framing, expanded our discussion of reflexivity and positionality, and more clearly articulated the study's limitations. We hope that these revisions have improved the clarity of the manuscript and that the revised version addresses the concerns raised during the review process.

 

3b. In the introduction, you must summarize the progress of research related to this study and explain to what extent and how this study can fill the research gap.

Thank you for this helpful comment. We summarised in greater detail the progress of research related to this study in line with the other reviewers’ suggestions (see response 1b). Additionally, we have now explicitly stated where the novelty lies within this study and what gap we are seeking to address. 

 

3c. In addition, it is necessary to present the rationale on how this type of therapeutic approach can enhance the mental resilience of LGBTQ+ individuals through specific methods

We thank the reviewer for this helpful comment. In response, we have expanded the introduction to provide a more detailed overview of the existing literature and the current state of research, in line with recommendations from other reviewers (see Response 1b). Additionally, we have now more explicitly articulated the novelty of the present study and the gap it seeks to address. Specifically, we highlight the limited research examining comedy-based interventions within LGBTQ+ populations and the paucity of qualitative research exploring how such interventions may support wellbeing, resilience, belonging, and community connectedness:

Despite promising evidence supporting comedy-based interventions, there re-mains a paucity of research examining their use within LGBTQ+ populations. Moreover, relatively little is known about how such interventions may support wellbeing, resili-ence, belonging, and community connectedness specifically among LGBTQ+ individu-als (Lines 135-138)

 

3d. Why was quantitative verification of the program not attempted after its implementation? Is the plan to conduct qualitative analysis after verifying the results through quantitative research?

We thank the reviewer for this interesting question. A quantitative evaluation was not undertaken at this stage of the programme because the primary aim of the present study was to develop a rich, in-depth understanding of participants’ experiences of the intervention. Consistent with the qualitative design of the project, we sought to understand how participants experienced the programme and the meanings they attributed to it, rather than to establish efficacy through quantitative outcome measures. We have also acknowledged within the limitations section that future evaluations, particularly if the programme is expanded or replicated, would benefit from the incorporation of quantitative measures and mixed-methods designs to assess changes in wellbeing, resilience, and related psychosocial outcomes alongside participants’ lived experiences.

 

3e. The stage numbering of Reflexive Thematic Analysis introduced starting from line 158, 1., 2., and 3., overlaps with the numbering of method 2., which is the higher number in this journal.

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this issue. We will ensure that the numbering within the Reflexive Thematic Analysis section is revised to align with the journal's formatting conventions and does not overlap with the higher-level manuscript headings.

 

3f. It is necessary to describe in detail the semi-structured questions used during the interview.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. We respectfully note that the manuscript already provides example questions from the semi-structured interview schedule to illustrate the topics explored during the interviews. As is common in qualitative research employing semi-structured interviews, these questions served as prompts rather than a prescriptive schedule, with follow-up questions and avenues of enquiry being adapted in response to participants' accounts. Consequently, providing the full interview schedule may give the misleading impression that interviews were conducted in a standardised manner. We have, however, reviewed this section and clarified the role of the interview guide in shaping, rather than determining, the interview discussions.

 

3g. It is recommended to change "3. Findings" to "3. Results".

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. Whilst we recognise that "Results" is a common reporting convention, particularly within quantitative research, we have elected to retain the heading "Findings" as this more closely aligns with the qualitative and interpretative nature of the present study. As Braun and Clarke (2021) note, the language of "results" can inadvertently reflect assumptions associated with more positivist approaches to knowledge production. Given the reflexive thematic analytic approach adopted in this study, we consider "Findings" to be a more appropriate descriptor of the themes generated through the analytic process.

 

3h. Some of the findings in this study seem to be topics or content that even I, who did not conduct the research, could simply predict.

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We acknowledge that some of the themes identified may appear intuitive and are broadly consistent with existing literature concerning belonging, social support, resilience, and wellbeing. However, as Bungay and colleagues (2024) note, there remains an important need for rigorous evaluation of arts-based health interventions if they are to be meaningfully integrated into policy and practice. Whilst it may seem intuitive that comedy- and arts-based programmes could benefit participants, the empirical evidence base remains comparatively limited, particularly within LGBTQ+ populations. As such, we believe that qualitative evaluations such as the present study remain valuable, not necessarily because they identify entirely unexpected phenomena, but because they provide a detailed understanding of how participants experience these interventions and the mechanisms through which they may support wellbeing. In the context of persistent LGBTQ+ mental health inequalities and ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of minority stress, such evidence is important for informing the development, refinement, and wider implementation of community-based interventions.

 

3g. Based on the results of this study, please provide more specific clinical (interventional) or socio-policy implications or suggestions.

Thank you for this comment and we have now incorporated an implications section. This was also in line with reviewer comment 4o. 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have just finished reading the manuscript, “Share your trauma… and make it funny”. Comedy as Catharsis and Community-Building in LGBTQ+ Mental Wellbeing and Resilience, and I appreciate the opportunity to comment on it. I have organised my comments bellow:

- The first research question asks “How can stand-up comedy-based interventions serve as an effective medium for mental wellbeing and resilience among LGBTQ+ individuals?” The question is framed as one about efficacy or mechanism. The dataset, drawn from post-intervention reflections of six self-selected participants, cannot really speak to that question in the form posed. Throughout the findings and discussion, sentences slide from “participants experienced X” to “the intervention produced X,” and the slide carries causal weight that the design does not warrant. I would ask the authors to reformulate RQ1 so that it aligns with what qualitative data of this kind can actually evidence, something closer to how participants make sense of perceived benefits. An alternative would be to state plainly in the discussion that the question of efficacy is being deferred for future mixed-methods work. As things stand, the abstract sentence “the programme facilitated both individual and collective forms of resilience” reads as stronger than what six post-hoc accounts can show.
- The reflexivity statement acknowledges that the lead author was directly involved in delivering “LGBTQteehee!” and also in collecting and coding data. The authors note that this “introduces the potential for bias, particularly in relation to the interpretation of findings.” The mitigation offered, that a second researcher (KA) was involved in coding, is reasonable but underspecified. A few questions remain. Did KA have any independent contact with participants, or only with the transcripts produced by AG? Were participants debriefed by someone other than AG, so that they could express ambivalent or critical views without concern for the relationship with the facilitator? The accounts that appear in the findings are uniformly affirming. The question this raises is not whether the participants are misleading the researcher. It is whether the data collection context constrained the range of accounts that could plausibly surface. Even a small qualitative study can report tensions or moments of friction, and the absence of any such material warrants comment. Were such accounts present in the raw data and not selected for presentation, or did they simply not arise? Either answer would be informative.
- The introduction draws on minority stress and on the social identity approach to health (the “social cure”), and the two are placed next to one another rather than brought into contact. The minority stress framework that the authors implicitly invoke through Bai et al. (2025), Kaprinis and Charalampakis (2025) and similar work has distal and proximal components that the present design does not engage with directly. The authors describe participants transforming “experiences of minority stress into sources of empowerment,” which is a strong theoretical claim. There is, however, no coding scheme in the methods that taps the specific stressors the participants are said to be transforming. I would find the analysis more persuasive if the authors articulated which aspects of minority stress are at issue, and through what mechanism the comedy programme is thought to act on them. The Häusser, Junker and van Dick (2020) model that the authors already cite would be useful for sharpening this part of the argument, since it differentiates group-level from individual-level mechanisms in social cure processes.
- The manuscript uses “resilience” in several different ways. At one point it is presented as an outcome that the programme is said to build. Elsewhere it appears as a coping process, with humour as the operative strategy. The theme label “Performing (Queer) Resilience” then nudges the concept toward a feature of identity itself. The slippage matters because the choice between trait, process and outcome framings shapes what counts as evidence. I would encourage the authors to commit to a particular conceptualisation early in the manuscript and to interrogate participants’ accounts against it. Otherwise resilience functions as a container term that absorbs heterogeneous observations and obscures more than it reveals. A related question is how the authors distinguish what they call “queer resilience” from already established constructs of community resilience in the LGBTQ+ literature. The Tate et al. (2025) paper I cite below would help here.
- The conclusions argue that the findings “support the potential of community-based comedy interventions as accessible, identity-affirming approaches to improving LGBTQ+ mental health, with implications for arts-based public health strategies.” I find the framing attractive in principle. With N = 6 in the analytic sample, all of whom volunteered to continue beyond the intervention, the basis for inferring public-health implications is thin. The Limitations section already acknowledges that “the study involved a relatively small and self-selecting participant group,” yet the abstract and the conclusion sustain claims that this acknowledgement partially undercuts. Could the authors temper the language in the abstract and conclusion so that it matches what a small qualitative evaluation can support, and reserve the more aspirational framing for the forward-looking parts of the discussion?
- Nine participants completed the programme. Six chose to take part in the follow-up. The three who did not participate are not characterised, even at the level of pseudonymised demographics, and their absence is not engaged with analytically. In a programme of this kind, the people who choose not to return for the follow-up conversation are often the people whose experience matters most for understanding feasibility and safety. I would like the authors to address what is known about those three participants, and what their non-participation might mean for the interpretation of the findings.
- The programme is described as offering counsellor support and being delivered in “a safe and affirming group environment.” The findings make clear that participants drew on personal trauma in crafting material. Given that the methods section is mostly silent on the procedures used to manage disclosure of distress, on what happened when content turned out to be too painful to rehearse, and on whether participants had any pathway for withdrawing material from the final showcase, I would like to see this discussed in more detail. This is also relevant for replication, since the next group to attempt such a programme will need to know what safeguards mattered most.
- 1. There are typographical issues that need attention in copy-editing. “Enhancinging” and “creatinging” appear on page 9. “Abled” on page 6 reads oddly in context. The dates given for data collection on page 3, “between December 2024 and January 2024,” appear to contain a year error and presumably should read January 2025.
-  The introduction draws on Craig and colleagues (2018) to claim that humour is the “main coping strategy” employed by queer youth. It would be worth acknowledging that the cited evidence base is small, and that humour-based coping has been studied across many groups with mixed implications for mental health. The contribution being made here is not that humour is uniquely beneficial, but that structured, identity-affirming comedy practice may amplify its effects in particular ways. Framing it that way would also make it easier for the discussion to connect with the wider humour styles literature.
- The reference to Social Identity Theory cites Tajfel (1974) alone. The formal articulation of SIT is in Tajfel and Turner (1979), and a more recent integrative source (Hornsey, 2008, or the Jetten et al. work already in the bibliography) would help anchor the theoretical claims.
- The first research question is restated almost verbatim in the discussion as if it had been answered, when in fact most of the discussion addresses the second. Closer alignment between research questions and what the discussion actually delivers would help the reader.
- The Conflict of Interest statement notes that the funder “was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.” Given that the lead author was both the facilitator of the funded programme and the lead analyst, a few additional lines on how that dual role was managed in relation to a funder with a stake in positive evaluations of community arts would strengthen the disclosure.
- Sample reporting is inconsistent. The text uses capital N for both the full sample (N = 9) and the analytic subsample (N = 6), and lower-case n for identity subgroups, but the conventions are not fully consistent across paragraphs. A brief reporting table with the original nine and the analytic six side by side would also help readers see the attrition at a glance.
- On page 7, the citation “(Kaprinis & Charalampakis, 2025)” appears mid-analysis in a way that suggests it has been inserted to do citational work where a more developed analytic point is needed. The same observation applies in one or two other places where a recent reference is doing the work that a sentence of interpretation should be doing.
- The discussion moves quickly between the empirical material and broader programmatic claims. A separate Implications subsection, distinct from the discussion of the findings, would help readers track what is grounded in the data and what is offered as informed speculation. This would also make it easier for the authors to be bolder about the speculative parts, since they would be clearly marked.
- The phrase “diverse queer spaces that facilitate organic connections between individuals who may not otherwise interact” is doing nice analytic work, but the manuscript does not engage with the intersectional literature that this insight is reaching towards. A brief paragraph in the discussion on how the diversity within the group (gender, sexuality, age, race) shaped, and possibly complicated, the “social cure” process would strengthen the contribution.
- A small point of language. The phrase “queer community” is used in places where the data refer to a small group of nine people. It would be more accurate, and less likely to be misread, to talk about “this queer group” or “the LGBTQteehee group,” reserving “queer community” for the broader population the authors invoke in the introduction.
Below are three recent references that I think would help the authors strengthen the manuscript, particularly the framing of minority stress in the introduction and how community resilience is conceptualised in the discussion. 
Silva, W. A. D., Do Bú, E. A., Brito, T. R. d. S., de Figueiredo, C. V., & Pereira, C. R. (2025). The impact of sexual orientation microaggressions on the mental health of Brazilian lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000807
Robinson, T. A., Coleman, T. M., & Carmack, C. (2025). “Your sexuality is yours and yours alone”, a reflexive thematic analysis of sexual orientation microaggressions and their impact on LGB emerging adults’ sexual health knowledge and attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1522751. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1522751
Tate, M. C., Thrasher, S. S., Watts, K. J., Otachi, J. K., Griffin, D., & Moore, J. X. (2025). The paradox of belonging. Minority stress, community belongingness, and subjective well-being among Black LGBTQ+ adults. Behavioral Sciences, 15(12), 1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15121604

Author Response

4a. The first research question asks “How can stand-up comedy-based interventions serve as an effective medium for mental wellbeing and resilience among LGBTQ+ individuals?” The question is framed as one about efficacy or mechanism. The dataset, drawn from post-intervention reflections of six self-selected participants, cannot really speak to that question in the form posed. Throughout the findings and discussion, sentences slide from “participants experienced X” to “the intervention produced X,” and the slide carries causal weight that the design does not warrant. I would ask the authors to reformulate RQ1 so that it aligns with what qualitative data of this kind can actually evidence, something closer to how participants make sense of perceived benefits. An alternative would be to state plainly in the discussion that the question of efficacy is being deferred for future mixed-methods work. As things stand, the abstract sentence “the programme facilitated both individual and collective forms of resilience” reads as stronger than what six post-hoc accounts can show.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful feedback and agree that the original framing of the research questions was not fully aligned with the qualitative nature of the study or the kinds of inferences that can be drawn from the data. In response, we have revised and reordered the research questions. Research Question 1 now takes a broader focus on participants' experiences of the programme as a whole, whilst Research Question 2 more specifically explores how participants understood and made sense of these experiences in relation to their mental wellbeing and resilience. We have also reviewed the manuscript to ensure that our language remains consistent with the exploratory nature of the study and does not imply causal claims that cannot be supported by the present design.

1.    What are the experiences of participants engaging with the “LGBTQteehee!” intervention? 
   2.    How do LGBTQ+ participants experience and describe the role of a stand-up comedy-based intervention in relation to their mental wellbeing?

 

4b. The reflexivity statement acknowledges that the lead author was directly involved in delivering “LGBTQteehee!” and also in collecting and coding data. The authors note that this “introduces the potential for bias, particularly in relation to the interpretation of findings.” The mitigation offered, that a second researcher (KA) was involved in coding, is reasonable but underspecified. A few questions remain. Did KA have any independent contact with participants, or only with the transcripts produced by AG? Were participants debriefed by someone other than AG, so that they could express ambivalent or critical views without concern for the relationship with the facilitator? The accounts that appear in the findings are uniformly affirming. The question this raises is not whether the participants are misleading the researcher. It is whether the data collection context constrained the range of accounts that could plausibly surface. Even a small qualitative study can report tensions or moments of friction, and the absence of any such material warrants comment. Were such accounts present in the raw data and not selected for presentation, or did they simply not arise? Either answer would be informative.

We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful observation. We agree that the dual role of AG as both programme facilitator and interviewer warrants careful consideration. To clarify, KA did not have direct contact with participants and was involved only in the analysis of interview transcripts. However, participants were provided with standard debrief materials following participation, including details of relevant support services and independent points of contact within both the theatre and university should they wish to raise concerns, provide feedback, or discuss their experiences outside of the research team.

We acknowledge that AG's involvement in both programme delivery and data collection may nevertheless have influenced what participants felt comfortable disclosing. Whilst we cannot rule out this possibility, it is important to note that participants overwhelmingly described positive experiences of the programme and few explicitly critical accounts emerged within the interviews. We therefore do not believe that negative accounts were selectively omitted from the analysis. However, we recognise that the absence of substantial criticism may itself reflect the context within which the data were generated and have now acknowledged this possibility within the reflexivity section.

We have also revisited the findings and discussion to ensure that the presentation of the data reflects a more nuanced account of participants' experiences. In particular, we have tempered causal language throughout the manuscript and highlighted examples where participants described ongoing mental health challenges despite valuing the intervention. We do not present the programme as a panacea for mental wellbeing, but rather as one potential source of support that participants perceived as beneficial alongside broader forms of psychological support.

 

4c. The introduction draws on minority stress and on the social identity approach to health (the “social cure”), and the two are placed next to one another rather than brought into contact. The minority stress framework that the authors implicitly invoke through Bai et al. (2025), Kaprinis and Charalampakis (2025) and similar work has distal and proximal components that the present design does not engage with directly. The authors describe participants transforming “experiences of minority stress into sources of empowerment,” which is a strong theoretical claim. There is, however, no coding scheme in the methods that taps the specific stressors the participants are said to be transforming. I would find the analysis more persuasive if the authors articulated which aspects of minority stress are at issue, and through what mechanism the comedy programme is thought to act on them. The Häusser, Junker and van Dick (2020) model that the authors already cite would be useful for sharpening this part of the argument, since it differentiates group-level from individual-level mechanisms in social cure processes.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful observation. We agree that the relationship between Minority Stress Theory and the Social Cure framework was not sufficiently articulated in the original manuscript. 
Drawing on Häusser et al. (2020), we now distinguish between individual- and group-level mechanisms through which the intervention may have been experienced as beneficial across the introduction and discussion. For example:
At an individual level, participants described using comedy to reinterpret difficult ex-periences and engage more openly with their emotions (i.e., reattribution). At a group level, participants emphasised the value of shared understanding, validation, and mu-tual support, which acted as a form of “shorthand” that enabled difficult experiences to be transformed into comedy without extensive explanation – developing a sense of collective self-efficacy (Häusser et al., 2020; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). In this sense, the intervention functioned not only as a creative outlet, but as a space in which personal reflection and community connection operated in tandem. (Lines 615-622)

We have also tempered language suggesting that minority stress was directly transformed by the intervention, instead framing these findings as participants' accounts of how comedy and community may have helped them make sense of, and respond to, experiences that could feasibly be associated with minority stress.

 

4d. The manuscript uses “resilience” in several different ways. At one point it is presented as an outcome that the programme is said to build. Elsewhere it appears as a coping process, with humour as the operative strategy. The theme label “Performing (Queer) Resilience” then nudges the concept toward a feature of identity itself. The slippage matters because the choice between trait, process and outcome framings shapes what counts as evidence. I would encourage the authors to commit to a particular conceptualisation early in the manuscript and to interrogate participants’ accounts against it. Otherwise resilience functions as a container term that absorbs heterogeneous observations and obscures more than it reveals. A related question is how the authors distinguish what they call “queer resilience” from already established constructs of community resilience in the LGBTQ+ literature. The Tate et al. (2025) paper I cite below would help here.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. In line with recommendations from other reviewers (see Response 1b), we have now clarified our conceptualisation of resilience as a dynamic and ongoing process rather than a static trait or outcome. We agree that greater conceptual clarity was needed and have expanded the introduction and discussion accordingly.

Additionally, we found the paper by Tate et al. (2025) particularly useful in refining our interpretation of resilience within the present study. Specifically, we have incorporated their argument that resilience is not simply developed through the existence of community spaces, but through active processes of space making: 

This is particularly important given recent scholarship suggesting that community space alone is insufficient. Instead, resilience emerges through active processes of space making that transform shared experiences of adversity into collective empowerment and action (Tate et al., 2025). Without such processes, communities may risk becoming sites of trauma bonding rather than growth and resistance. Within this context, “LGBTQteehee!” demonstrates the potential of comedy-based interventions to facilitate resilience as an active and agentic process rather than a passive (Bartlett et al., 2022; Lockett et al., 2023) (Lines 582-589)

We have also clarified our use of the term “queer resilience”. Our intention was not to suggest that queer resilience is wholly distinct from community resilience, but rather to emphasise that the resilience processes described by participants were grounded in shared experiences of queerness: 

Importantly, participants consistently identified the queer-specific nature of the programme as both a motivation for participation and a key source of its perceived benefit. Whilst resilience was developed through individual and community processes, these processes were grounded in shared experiences of queerness, mutual recognition, and identity affirmation. As such, the findings suggest not simply the development of community resilience in a generic sense, but resilience that was enacted through and shaped by queer identities and queer social connection. (Lines 486-492)

 

4e. The conclusions argue that the findings “support the potential of community-based comedy interventions as accessible, identity-affirming approaches to improving LGBTQ+ mental health, with implications for arts-based public health strategies.” I find the framing attractive in principle. With N = 6 in the analytic sample, all of whom volunteered to continue beyond the intervention, the basis for inferring public-health implications is thin. The Limitations section already acknowledges that “the study involved a relatively small and self-selecting participant group,” yet the abstract and the conclusion sustain claims that this acknowledgement partially undercuts. Could the authors temper the language in the abstract and conclusion so that it matches what a small qualitative evaluation can support, and reserve the more aspirational framing for the forward-looking parts of the discussion?

We agree that more caution is needed to ensure we are realistic in what a sample of N = 6 participants can offer in terms of findings. We have tempered language throughout in line with other reviewer comments but specifically here have amended the conclusion to be more aligned with the reviewer’s suggestion:

These findings suggest that community-based comedy interventions may offer accessible and identity-affirming spaces through which LGBTQ+ individuals can explore wellbe-ing, belonging, and resilience. Whilst further evaluation is required, the findings con-tribute to growing discussions regarding the role of arts-based approaches in supporting LGBTQ+ mental health and wellbeing. (Lines 32-26)

 

4f. Nine participants completed the programme. Six chose to take part in the follow-up. The three who did not participate are not characterised, even at the level of pseudonymised demographics, and their absence is not engaged with analytically. In a programme of this kind, the people who choose not to return for the follow-up conversation are often the people whose experience matters most for understanding feasibility and safety. I would like the authors to address what is known about those three participants, and what their non-participation might mean for the interpretation of the findings.

We thank the reviewer for this insightful point and agree that those who do not participate in follow-up discussions can often provide some of the most important perspectives when considering programme feasibility and participant experiences. Anecdotally, there was nothing throughout the programme that suggested these participants had a negative experience; indeed, all successfully completed the intervention and performed in the final showcase. However, we recognise that the absence of their accounts remains an important limitation. Whilst there is no evidence to suggest disengagement or dissatisfaction, their non-participation in the follow-up means that potentially important experiences, perspectives, or critiques were not captured. We have therefore reflected on this limitation within the manuscript as follows:

At this juncture, it is also pertinent to reflect on the participant accounts that were not captured. Although all nine participants successfully completed the programme, three did not participate in the follow-up data collection. As such, the present findings are based on the experiences of those who elected to share their reflections after the inter-vention. Whilst there is no indication that non-participation reflected dissatisfaction with the programme, these missing accounts may represent experiences, perspectives, or tensions that were not captured within the analysis. Consequently, the findings should be interpreted with appropriate caution when considering the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention more broadly. (Lines 660-668)

 

4g. The programme is described as offering counsellor support and being delivered in “a safe and affirming group environment.” The findings make clear that participants drew on personal trauma in crafting material. Given that the methods section is mostly silent on the procedures used to manage disclosure of distress, on what happened when content turned out to be too painful to rehearse, and on whether participants had any pathway for withdrawing material from the final showcase, I would like to see this discussed in more detail. This is also relevant for replication, since the next group to attempt such a programme will need to know what safeguards mattered most.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. We agree that the safeguards underpinning the programme were not sufficiently described in the original manuscript. In response, we have expanded the introduction section that describes the intervention to provide greater detail regarding the support structures embedded throughout the intervention:

A qualified counsellor was present throughout the programme and available for one-to-one support where required. Participants were introduced to principles of safe disclosure, retained full control over the personal material they shared, and were re-minded that content could be modified, redacted, or withdrawn from the final show-case at any stage. (lines 154-157)

 

4h. There are typographical issues that need attention in copy-editing. “Enhancinging” and “creatinging” appear on page 9. “Abled” on page 6 reads oddly in context. The dates given for data collection on page 3, “between December 2024 and January 2024,” appear to contain a year error and presumably should read January 2025.

Thank you for spotting these, we have amended these typographical issues and have proofread the paper. We will ensure we work with the copy editors throughout to rectify any further typos. 

 

4i. The introduction draws on Craig and colleagues (2018) to claim that humour is the “main coping strategy” employed by queer youth. It would be worth acknowledging that the cited evidence base is small, and that humour-based coping has been studied across many groups with mixed implications for mental health. The contribution being made here is not that humour is uniquely beneficial, but that structured, identity-affirming comedy practice may amplify its effects in particular ways. Framing it that way would also make it easier for the discussion to connect with the wider humour styles literature.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We agree that the original wording risked overstating the role of humour as a coping strategy and did not sufficiently acknowledge the broader humour literature. In response, we have revised the introduction to clarify that humour-based coping is neither unique to LGBTQ+ populations nor uniformly beneficial.

 

4j. The reference to Social Identity Theory cites Tajfel (1974) alone. The formal articulation of SIT is in Tajfel and Turner (1979), and a more recent integrative source (Hornsey, 2008, or the Jetten et al. work already in the bibliography) would help anchor the theoretical claims.

Thank you for this comment and we have now amended the citation to show the breadth of scholarship in this area with updated references. 

 

4k. The first research question is restated almost verbatim in the discussion as if it had been answered, when in fact most of the discussion addresses the second. Closer alignment between research questions and what the discussion actually delivers would help the reader.

Thank you for this comment and we have now, in line with the edits made to the RQs more broadly (see response 4a) amended the start of the discussion to closer align the questions and the subsequent discussion of findings:

This study explored LGBTQ+ participants' experiences of “LGBTQTeehee!”, a 10-week stand-up comedy intervention, and how they made sense of its perceived im-pact on their wellbeing and resilience. Participants described the programme as providing opportunities for community connection, emotional expression, and person-al growth, with many reflecting on the importance of engaging in comedy within an affirming queer environment. (Lines 574-579)

 

4l. The Conflict of Interest statement notes that the funder “was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication.” Given that the lead author was both the facilitator of the funded programme and the lead analyst, a few additional lines on how that dual role was managed in relation to a funder with a stake in positive evaluations of community arts would strengthen the disclosure.

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. The conflict of interest now reads as:

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare that this study received funding from by Birmingham City Council (BCC). The funder was not involved in the study design, collection, analysis, interpretation of data, the writing of this article or the decision to submit it for publication. Whilst the lead author was involved in the delivery of the programme and collection of the data, the analysis was conducted collaboratively with researchers not involved in programme delivery, as outlined within the reflexivity statement.

 

4m. Sample reporting is inconsistent. The text uses capital N for both the full sample (N = 9) and the analytic subsample (N = 6), and lower-case n for identity subgroups, but the conventions are not fully consistent across paragraphs. A brief reporting table with the original nine and the analytic six side by side would also help readers see the attrition at a glance.

Thank you for this and in line with response 4f, we have included such a table showing the attrition throughout. 

 

4n. On page 7, the citation “(Kaprinis & Charalampakis, 2025)” appears mid-analysis in a way that suggests it has been inserted to do citational work where a more developed analytic point is needed. The same observation applies in one or two other places where a recent reference is doing the work that a sentence of interpretation should be doing.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. Whilst relatively few references were used throughout the findings, as the analysis was primarily grounded in participants' accounts, those that were included were intended to situate the findings within relevant theoretical and empirical literature. However, we agree that in several instances these citations were performing more citational than analytical work. In response, we have revised these sections to enrich the interpretation of participants' accounts and ensure that references are used to support, rather than substitute for, the analytic narrative.

 

4o. The discussion moves quickly between the empirical material and broader programmatic claims. A separate Implications subsection, distinct from the discussion of the findings, would help readers track what is grounded in the data and what is offered as informed speculation. This would also make it easier for the authors to be bolder about the speculative parts, since they would be clearly marked.

We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. In line with recommendations from other reviewers, we have now incorporated a dedicated Implications section. This provides space for a broader and more forward-looking discussion of the potential future development and application of such interventions, whilst clearly distinguishing these considerations from the empirical findings. To provide balance, this section is presented alongside the study limitations, ensuring that any wider implications are interpreted within the context of the methodological constraints of the present study.

 

4p. A small point of language. The phrase “queer community” is used in places where the data refer to a small group of nine people. It would be more accurate, and less likely to be misread, to talk about “this queer group” or “the LGBTQteehee group,” reserving “queer community” for the broader population the authors invoke in the introduction.
Below are three recent references that I think would help the authors strengthen the manuscript, particularly the framing of minority stress in the introduction and how community resilience is conceptualised in the discussion.

We thank the reviewer for this excellent observation. We particularly appreciated the suggestion to refer to the “LGBTQteehee group” where appropriate, as this more accurately reflects the small but meaningful community that developed through participation in the programme. We believe this terminology better captures the unique interpersonal connections formed during the intervention whilst avoiding the implication that participants were speaking on behalf of the broader queer community. This distinction also aligns well with our expanded discussion of community and queer resilience, drawing on Tate et al. (2025) (see also Response 4d). The remaining citations have now been incorporated into the manuscript, particularly within the discussion of minority stress. They were helpful in strengthening our argument that contemporary LGBTQ+ individuals continue to navigate hostile social environments and ongoing minority stressors, underscoring the continued importance of developing, evaluating, and refining interventions that support LGBTQ+ wellbeing and community connection.

 

4r. Silva, W. A. D., Do Bú, E. A., Brito, T. R. d. S., de Figueiredo, C. V., & Pereira, C. R. (2025). The impact of sexual orientation microaggressions on the mental health of Brazilian lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000807
Robinson, T. A., Coleman, T. M., & Carmack, C. (2025). “Your sexuality is yours and yours alone”, a reflexive thematic analysis of sexual orientation microaggressions and their impact on LGB emerging adults’ sexual health knowledge and attitudes. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1522751. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1522751
Tate, M. C., Thrasher, S. S., Watts, K. J., Otachi, J. K., Griffin, D., & Moore, J. X. (2025). The paradox of belonging. Minority stress, community belongingness, and subjective well-being among Black LGBTQ+ adults. Behavioral Sciences, 15(12), 1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15121604

Thank you for these references, they have been incorporated where appropriate. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe the authors addressed my previous concerns and questions.