Risk Factors for Teen Dating Violence Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youths: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This review examines studies of teen dating violence among sexual and gender minority youth published between the years 2014-2024, and the contributors to or correlates of the violence. It is well written and generally clear. Although the review process followed recommended protocols, I had several questions about the rationale for some decisions and wondered about the extent to which the review, as conducted, significantly advances our view of current literature.

I offer comments in order of presentation in the manuscript.

Objectives

It is not clear how objective 3 is different from aim 2, and I don’t see text directly addressing it.

Methods

I was surprised at the relatively small number of studies identified through the search. This may be a function of how the search terms were used, and I wonder if useful studies might have been excluded. For example, it seems odd that only the term “dating violence” was used in the search rather than also including additional terms such as partner violence. In addition, given that one objective is to look at the diversity of the SMY population, presumably in relation to the prevalence of violent experiences, why eliminate studies of violence that did not also look directly at risk factors? I also wondered if the geographic limitation of identified studies might be a function of limited data bases searched or the search terms used? I did appreciate that previous reviews and meta-analyses were included.

This sentence “Studies involving participants over the age of 19 or not belonging to sexual minorities were excluded” was unclear. Does this mean no studies with comparison samples are included? Table 1 suggests not.

Results

Tables 2 and 3 are useful summaries for assessing methodological limitations of identified studies.

Table 4 is not actually referenced in the text, though there is text describing its contents.

Much of the results are counts – number of studies addressing perpetration for example. This is useful, though limited, and sets the stage for discussion and interpretation.

Discussion

This text: “This systematic review highlights the disproportionate prevalence of teen dating violence (TDV) among sexual and gender minority youth (SMY), particularly in the forms of psychological, physical, and sexual victimization.”  This is not accurate. There is no presentation of prevalence estimates from the studies included in the review. Thus, the discussion of prevalence among minority vs majority populations, and singling out bisexual and pansexual groups as especially vulnerable is not based on actual data presented– and the referent is unclear. Are they more vulnerable compared to cisgender heterosexuals, or other sexual minority youth or both? Or does this vary by study? And of studies that provide prevalence estimates, are they actually population estimates? I am not questioning the conclusion, just requesting greater clarity on the data presented in the studies that were reviewed.

The text below:

“Moreover, while physical and sexual TDV were nearly always included, fewer studies examined psychological, emotional, or cyber forms of aggression. One possible explanation is that non-physical abuse—such as manipulation, verbal coercion, jealousy, or emotional control—is often not recognized by adolescents as abusive behavior.”

Doesn’t make sense to me. It appears that most studies simply don’t ask these questions, not that adolescents are asked about it but don’t recognize these behaviors as abusive. “This subjective invisibility….” which the present authors reference is actually invisibility on the part of investigators not the adolescent study participants. As currently written, it is not clear if that’s what’s meant.

In the discussion of contributors/correlates of violence, there is inadequate distinction and discussion between individual factors that may be unique to SMY (e.g., the role of minority stress) and factors that may be similarly applicable to all youth (e.g., substance use, poor emotional regulation). Ditto on relational and structural risk factors.

In the discussion of limitations and gaps, there doesn’t seem to be much that is new, i.e., that hasn’t already been said in earlier reviews (e.g., Edwards et al., 2015). It appears that previously noted limitations of the broader literature on IPV among sexual/gender minorities are similar to this more recent literature focused on youth, and thus recommendations for future work are similar (e.g., assess gender identity; standardized IPV measures; assess intersecting identities; superior study designs that include more diverse samples; prioritize longitudinal work; utilize social ecological  model).

This is an important point that is not made in the manuscript; there has been minimal improvement in addressing these limitations despite earlier reviews noting important gaps and limitations.

The discussion and conclusion sections are somewhat repetitive

Author Response

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 1 for the time and thoughtful feedback provided. We greatly appreciate your constructive comments and insightful suggestions, which we believe have significantly contributed to improving the clarity, rigor, and overall quality of our manuscript. Below, we address each point in detail and describe the corresponding revisions made.

Comment 1

It is not clear how objective 3 is different from aim 2, and I don’t see text directly addressing it.

Response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised Objective 3 to clarify that it refers to the analysis of TDV involvement (victimization/perpetration) across different subgroups, which is conceptually distinct from the identification of general risk factors in Objective 2.

We now changed objective 3 as you can see within the Introduction, lines 78-82.

 

Comment 2

I was surprised at the relatively small number of studies identified through the search. This may be a function of how the search terms were used, and I wonder if useful studies might have been excluded. For example, it seems odd that only the term ‘dating violence’ was used…

Response:

We appreciate this observation. We clarified the rationale behind prioritizing 'dating violence' over broader terms such as 'partner violence' to maintain focus on adolescent contexts. Indeed, the term “dating violence” was selected to focus specifically on adolescent romantic relationships, as “partner violence” may retrieve adult IPV studies.  Additionally, we acknowledged that our inclusion criteria might have excluded some studies, which is now recognized as a limitation. These changes can be found at paragraph 2.2, lines 101-109.

Comment 3

In addition, given that one objective is to look at the diversity of the SMY population, presumably in relation to the prevalence of violent experiences, why eliminate studies of violence that did not also look directly at risk factors?

Response: Our inclusion criteria focused on studies investigating TDV as an outcome, in line with our aim to identify predictors and correlates. We clarified this at paragraph 2.1, lines 100-102.

Comment 4

I also wondered if the geographic limitation of identified studies might be a function of limited data bases searched, or the search terms used?

Response: 

We thank the reviewer for their comment. We reckon that the geographical limitation of findings may be due to the available evidence and not to database choice. We used three major international databases. We have now added a note to this effect at paragraph 4.5, lines 494-497.

Comment 5

This sentence ‘Studies involving participants over the age of 19 or not belonging to sexual minorities were excluded’ was unclear. Does this mean no studies with comparison samples are included?

Response:

Thank you for your feedback. We clarified that studies including comparison groups were retained, provided that results were disaggregated and risk factors specific to SMY were reported. These changes can now be found at paragraph 2.1, lines 95-102.

Comment 6

Table 4 is not actually referenced in the text, though there is text describing its contents.

Response:

Thank you. We have now added explicit references to Table 4 throughout the relevant results subsections to improve clarity and guide the reader (i.e., par. 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3).

Comment 7

This text: This systematic review highlights the disproportionate prevalence […] This is not accurate. There is no presentation of prevalence estimates […] Are they more vulnerable compared to cisgender heterosexuals, or other sexual minority youth or both? Or does this vary by study And of studies that provide prevalence estimates, are they actually population estimates? I am not questioning the conclusion, just requesting greater clarity on the data presented in the studies that were reviewed.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have revised the paragraph to avoid unsubstantiated claims about prevalence and clarified the nature of the findings presented. These changes can be now found at paragraph 4.1, lines 302-313.

Comment 8

“Moreover, while physical and sexual TDV were nearly always included, fewer studies examined psychological, emotional, or cyber forms of aggression. One possible explanation is that non-physical abuse—such as manipulation, verbal coercion, jealousy, or emotional control—is often not recognized by adolescents as abusive behavior.”

Doesn’t make sense to me. It appears that most studies simply don’t ask these questions, not that adolescents are asked about it but don’t recognize these behaviors as abusive. ‘This subjective invisibility….’ which the present authors reference is actually invisibility on the part of investigators not the adolescent study participants. As currently written, it is not clear if that’s what’s meant.”

Response:

Thank you, your comment was very insightful. We now revised the paragraph to clarify that the invisibility of emotional/psychological violence is due both to limitations in research operationalization and to broader social factors that affect adolescents' recognition of such violence. These changes can be now found at paragraph 4.2, lines 342-356.

Comment 9

In the discussion of contributors/correlates of violence, there is inadequate distinction and discussion between individual factors that may be unique to SMY (e.g., the role of minority stress) and factors that may be similarly applicable to all youth (e.g., substance use, poor emotional regulation). 

Response:

We agree and have revised the paragraph to clearly distinguish between SMY-specific factors (e.g., minority stress) and general adolescent risk factors (e.g., substance use), while highlighting their interaction. These changes can now be found at paragraph 4.3, lines 377-388.

Comment 10

Ditto on relational and structural risk factors.

Response:

Thank you. We addressed this by explicitly distinguishing between relational/structural risks shared across adolescents and those uniquely impacting SMY. The revised paragraph also highlights how shared risks are amplified by minority stress. These changes can be now found, in different points, at paragraph 4.4; i.e.: family rejection, lines 404-409; exposure to parental conflict and intergenerational violence, lines 407-408; school climate, lines 425-430.

Comment 11

In the discussion of limitations and gaps, there doesn’t seem to be much that is new, i.e., that hasn’t already been said in earlier reviews (e.g., Edwards et al., 2015). It appears that previously noted limitations of the broader literature on IPV among sexual/gender minorities are similar to this more recent literature focused on youth, and thus recommendations for future work are similar (e.g., assess gender identity; standardized IPV measures; assess intersecting identities; superior study designs that include more diverse samples; prioritize longitudinal work; utilize social ecological model).”

Response:

We appreciate this comment. We added a paragraph to highlight that despite previous calls for improvements, little progress has been made. This strengthens the critical contribution of our review. These changes can now be found at paragraph 4.5, lines 489-496.

Comment 12

The discussion and conclusion sections are somewhat repetitive.

Response:

We agree with this observation and have revised the conclusion to be more concise, eliminating repetition while emphasizing implications for future research and practice. These changes can now be found at paragraph 5, lines 533-546.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present a systematic review of teen dating violence in sexual and gender minority youth populations. This is an important contribution to the field as there continue to be gaps in the research targeting this population. This report also includes an eye towards relational and structural risk factors for teen dating violence, which is both salient and generally lacking in the literature. My enthusiasm for this manuscript is high. I also recommend that the authors consider the following comments, to further strengthen this report:

INTRODUCTION

This section hits the major points expected, including limited comparability of definitions; conflation of gender and sexual identity; variability in how orientation is defined; data not disaggregated and often does not account for intersectionality; lack of focus on bidirectional TDV behavior; use of non-validated measures

Authors note that SGM youth are at higher risk. It would be worth it to briefly overview what we know about why those differences exist.

METHODS

Include brief rationale for 2014-2024 search period. Specifically, why no further back than 2014?

Include brief rationale for only targeting psychological science research

LINE 88: “…of not belonging to sexual minorities were excluded.” This phrase may have a typo?

Use of JBI’s Critical Appraisal tools is a strength

RESULTS

(Minor) Line 136 “64” should be spelled out at the beginning of a sentence

Notes that N ranges from fewer than 100 participants, however, that is not reflected in Table 1. The smallest N reported in the table is 246 (Hill et al., 2022)

Table 1: the age range for Ray et al., 2023 seems to have a typo (12:22:00); the age range for Reuter, Sharp & Temple 2015 seems to have a typo (17.6). Perhaps this is the mean or median age reported rather than the range?

Line 185 “some studies included stalking as a distinct category of TDV” how is this behavior treated in other studies? Psychological violence?

How prevalent were some of the other issues identified in the introduction? E.g., were their issues with studies conflating sex and gender identity? Was there any alignment in how terms were defined?

DISCUSSION

Lines 273-274 it is unclear as to why Sexual and Gender Minority is capitalized here

Subsection 4.2 – the discussion about inadequate operationalization of teen dating violence is a salient point, but should also be introduced in the Results section

Subsection 4.3 – this section mentions “behavioral factors” but their connection to minority stress or mental health is not explained. Please explain this.

Subsection 4.4 – non-consensual outing is an important example to highlight. What were other forms of SMY-specific psychological violence assessed and what do we know about their impact on adolescents? Additionally, if the authors are not already familiar with this article, they may consider review and inclusion of: Woulfe, J. M., & Goodman, L. A. (2021). Identity abuse as a tactic of violence in LGBTQ communities: Initial validation of the identity abuse measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5-6), 2656-2676). (disclaimer: this is not my work, but I found it helpful for articulating SGM-specific forms of interpersonal violence)

I think it’s important to note that 20/25 of the included studies were published between 2020-2024. This tells us something about trends in this line of inquiry and societal shifts.

Few studies assessed dating violence perpetrated in online or digital spaces. Given the ubiquitous use of technology among adolescent populations, the added incentive for SGM youth to use these spaces to “safely” explore their identity, meet partners, etc., and the disproportionate experiences of dating violence for SGM youth in these spaces, it is surprising that this point did not receive more attention in this report. I would consider making this addition.

GENERAL

The acronym “SMY” is included in parentheses after “sexual minority youth” and “sexual and gender minority youth” throughout. Generally, once an acronym is introduced, it is used almost exclusively going forward. Also, you may consider using “SGMY” to represent sexual and gender minority youth and to differentiate from mentions of sexual minority youth only.

Author Response

The authors present a systematic review of teen dating violence in sexual and gender minority youth populations. This is an important contribution to the field as there continue to be gaps in the research targeting this population. This report also includes an eye towards relational and structural risk factors for teen dating violence, which is both salient and generally lacking in the literature. My enthusiasm for this manuscript is high. I also recommend that the authors consider the following comments, to further strengthen this report:

1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and encouraging feedback. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the relevance of our systematic review and your positive appraisal of our focus on relational and structural risk factors, which we agree are often overlooked in the literature. Your supportive words and constructive suggestions are highly motivating, and we have carefully considered your comments to further strengthen the manuscript.

INTRODUCTION

This section hits the major points expected, including limited comparability of definitions; conflation of gender and sexual identity; variability in how orientation is defined; data not disaggregated and often does not account for intersectionality; lack of focus on bidirectional TDV behavior; use of non-validated measures

Authors note that SGM youth are at higher risk. It would be worth it to briefly overview what we know about why those differences exist.

1. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 1, lines 45-49

METHODS

Include brief rationale for 2014-2024 search period. Specifically, why no further back than 2014?

Include brief rationale for only targeting psychological science research

2. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 2.1, lines 101-110.

LINE 88: “…of not belonging to sexual minorities were excluded.” This phrase may have a typo?

1. Thank you for spotting this. We now changed this, also accordingly to the requests of reviewer 1. These changes can be found at paragraph 2.1, lines 112-118.

Use of JBI’s Critical Appraisal tools is a strength

1. Thank you for pointing this out

RESULTS

(Minor) Line 136 “64” should be spelled out at the beginning of a sentence

1. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Notes that N ranges from fewer than 100 participants, however, that is not reflected in Table 1. The smallest N reported in the table is 246 (Hill et al., 2022)

3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 3.1, line 199.

Table 1: the age range for Ray et al., 2023 seems to have a typo (12:22:00); the age range for Reuter, Sharp & Temple 2015 seems to have a typo (17.6). Perhaps this is the mean or median age reported rather than the range?

1. Thank you very much for pointing this out. It appears that the data were inadvertently altered when copying from Excel to Word. We have now corrected this issue.

Line 185 “some studies included stalking as a distinct category of TDV” how is this behavior treated in other studies? Psychological violence?

3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 3.3, lines 242-245

How prevalent were some of the other issues identified in the introduction? E.g., were their issues with studies conflating sex and gender identity? Was there any alignment in how terms were defined?

3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 3.5, lines 300-308.

DISCUSSION

Lines 273-274 it is unclear as to why Sexual and Gender Minority is capitalized here

1. It should not. Thanks for spotting that. We now revised the manuscript accordingly.

Subsection 4.2 – the discussion about inadequate operationalization of teen dating violence is a salient point, but should also be introduced in the Results section

3. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the manuscript accordingly. The change can be found at paragraph 3.2, lines 214-219.

Subsection 4.3 – this section mentions “behavioral factors” but their connection to minority stress or mental health is not explained. Please explain this.

4. We wanted to thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We now restructured paragraph 4.3 in order to make clearer the connection between minority stress and the behavioral factors above mentioned.

Subsection 4.4 – non-consensual outing is an important example to highlight. What were other forms of SMY-specific psychological violence assessed and what do we know about their impact on adolescents? Additionally, if the authors are not already familiar with this article, they may consider review and inclusion of: Woulfe, J. M., & Goodman, L. A. (2021). Identity abuse as a tactic of violence in LGBTQ communities: Initial validation of the identity abuse measure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(5-6), 2656-2676). (disclaimer: this is not my work, but I found it helpful for articulating SGM-specific forms of interpersonal violence)

4. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and for highlighting the importance of non-consensual outing as well as other forms of psychological violence specific to SMY. We found the suggested article by Woulfe and Goodman (2021) particularly illuminating and helpful in framing SGM-specific tactics such as identity abuse. We have reviewed this work and integrated relevant insights into the revised manuscript to better articulate the unique forms and impacts of psychological violence in SGMY populations. These changes can be found at paragraph 4.4, lines 570-578.

I think it’s important to note that 20/25 of the included studies were published between 2020-2024. This tells us something about trends in this line of inquiry and societal shifts.

4. We sincerely thank the reviewer for pointing out this very important aspect, which we had not explicitly noted. We agree that the concentration of studies published between 2020 and 2024 provides valuable insight into emerging research trends and broader societal shifts regarding awareness and prioritization of SMY-related issues. We have now highlighted this point in the manuscript to underscore its relevance. These changes can be found at paragraph 4.5, lines 624-628.

Few studies assessed dating violence perpetrated in online or digital spaces. Given the ubiquitous use of technology among adolescent populations, the added incentive for SGM youth to use these spaces to “safely” explore their identity, meet partners, etc., and the disproportionate experiences of dating violence for SGM youth in these spaces, it is surprising that this point did not receive more attention in this report. I would consider making this addition.

1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point, which we had not sufficiently emphasized in the original version. We fully agree that the role of online and digital spaces in dating violence perpetration and victimization—particularly given their unique relevance for SGM youth exploring identity and relationships—is a crucial aspect that deserves more attention. We have now addressed this issue in the revised manuscript and added a specific note on the scarcity of studies examining digital contexts, as well as their implications for understanding TDV risk among SGMY.

GENERAL

The acronym “SMY” is included in parentheses after “sexual minority youth” and “sexual and gender minority youth” throughout. Generally, once an acronym is introduced, it is used almost exclusively going forward. Also, you may consider using “SGMY” to represent sexual and gender minority youth and to differentiate from mentions of sexual minority youth only.

1. We sincerely thank the reviewer for this helpful observation regarding the use of acronyms. We agree that consistent and precise terminology is essential for clarity. In response to this comment, we have carefully revised the manuscript to ensure that the acronym SGMY is used throughout to refer to sexual and gender minority youth (including lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and non-binary adolescents). The acronym SMY is retained only when directly referencing source studies that specifically use this term to refer to sexual minority youth only. We have added this clarification to the text to guide the reader.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have been generally responsive to review comments.