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

Abstract

Background: Teen dating violence (TDV) is a serious public health concern, with sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) at elevated risk due to minority stress and systemic inequalities. This systematic review examines individual, relational, and contextual risk factors for TDV among SGMY. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in Scopus, Web of Science, and APA PsycInfo on 10 December 2024. Studies published between 2014 and 2024 focusing on teen dating violence (TDV) as an outcome among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) aged 13–19 were included. Study selection was independently performed by multiple reviewers using Rayyan. Risk of bias was assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Due to heterogeneity in the study design and measurement tools, a narrative synthesis was conducted. Results: Six risk domains emerged: (1) Demographic/Identity (e.g., gender, orientation, or race); (2) Psychological/Behavioral (e.g., distress or substance use); (3) Violence/Bullying (e.g., cyberbullying or exclusion); (4) Family/Sexual Abuse (e.g., family rejection); (5) Relational/Social (e.g., partner outing); and (6) School/Community (e.g., non-inclusive environments). Bisexual, pansexual, transgender, and racialized youth showed heightened vulnerability. Most studies were conducted in the USA and relied on non-validated TDV measures and cross-sectional designs, limiting comparability and causal inference. Conclusions: SGMY face unique, often overlooked TDV risks. There is a need for intersectional, longitudinal research and inclusive, developmentally appropriate prevention efforts that address both relational and structural factors. This review received no external funding and was not registered.

1. Introduction

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a critical public health issue that pervasively affects adolescents, with particularly high prevalence rates in this age group [1,2]. Violence experienced or perpetrated in romantic and sexual relationships during adolescence is associated with a wide range of negative mental health outcomes, including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, substance use, risky sexual behaviors, and academic difficulties [3,4,5]. Moreover, the negative consequences of TDV often persist long after the abusive relationship has ended and can have enduring effects on well-being. TDV is also a known predictor of future involvement in intimate partner violence (IPV) in adulthood [6].

Sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY)—including adolescents who identify as non-heterosexual and/or transgender/gender variant—experience disproportionately higher rates of both physical and mental health challenges compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers [7,8,9]. These disparities have been linked to the effects of minority stress, including internalized stigma, the concealment of identity, anticipated rejection, and a lack of social support. Such stressors contribute to psychological vulnerability, increase exposure to unsafe environments, and reduce access to protective resources, all of which heighten the risk of experiencing dating violence. In adulthood, this population also reports elevated levels of intimate partner violence, suggesting a link between early experiences of relational violence and long-term vulnerability [10,11,12,13].

Although some studies report that TDV prevalence among SGMY ranges from 11% to over 40% [14,15,16], the literature remains limited in scope and depth. Most research in this field fails to disaggregate findings based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or intersecting axes of identity such as race, class, and disability. Furthermore, operational definitions of “sexual minority” vary widely—ranging from self-identified LGBTQ+ individuals to those engaging in same-sex behaviors—thereby limiting the comparability and specificity of findings [17].

A key limitation of the current evidence base is the frequent conflation of sexual orientation and gender identity, with many studies using broad labels such as “LGBTQ youth” or “sexual minority youth” without accounting for subgroup-specific dynamics. For instance, bisexual adolescents report distinct psychosocial risks, including higher levels of psychological distress and self-injurious behaviors [18]. Likewise, non-binary and transgender youth often face forms of violence—such as misgendering or threats of outing—that are not adequately captured in traditional TDV frameworks.

The existing literature also reveals inconsistent findings regarding both the nature of violence (e.g., physical, sexual, psychological, verbal, or relational) and the roles played by individuals (victim, perpetrator, or both). While the broader literature on intimate partner violence (IPV) conceptualizes violence as often bidirectional—where perpetration may predict victimization and vice versa [19,20]—this dynamic is rarely addressed in TDV research. Some studies suggest that same-gender couples report higher rates of bidirectional violence than heterosexual ones [21], yet most investigations focus narrowly on unidirectional victimization, especially in relation to physical and sexual abuse [16,22]

In light of these gaps, the present systematic review aims to synthesize the empirical evidence on the risk factors and correlates of TDV among SGMY. Recognizing the heterogeneity within this population and the limitations of the current research landscape, the review pursues the following objectives:

• To describe the diversity of SGMY as a vulnerable population in relation to TDV, including distinctions by sex assigned at birth and gender identity;
• To identify individual, relational, and structural risk factors associated with TDV within SGMY populations;
• To explore how different forms of TDV involvement (victimization, perpetration, or both) manifest across specific subgroups of SGMY, and how these patterns relate to intersecting minority statuses such as gender identity, sexual orientation, and race/ethnicity.

In this manuscript, we use the acronym SGMY 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 used in source studies to refer specifically to sexual minority youth.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic review was conducted following the procedures recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [23]. To minimize potential biases, multiple researchers participated in the selection and analysis of the included publications.

2.1. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

A set of eligibility criteria was defined to guide the inclusion and exclusion process of the collected studies. In particular, research articles published between 2014 and 2024 in the field of psychological science and addressing risk factors for teen dating violence among sexual minorities were included. The decision to limit the search to studies published from 2014 onwards was based on the increasing visibility and recognition of sexual and gender minority youth in psychological research over the past decade. In addition, methodological advancements and shifts in the conceptualization of TDV and minority stress since 2014 have improved the quality and relevance of more recent studies. The focus on psychological science reflects the review’s aim to examine the intrapersonal, relational, and contextual mechanisms contributing to TDV, with particular attention paid to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral risk factors. Psychological science also offers validated frameworks—such as minority stress theory and ecological models—useful for understanding the vulnerabilities experienced by SGMY. Also, systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included to identify additional studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Studies were excluded if their primary focus was on participants over the age of 19 or if they did not report findings for sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) separately. However, studies including comparison groups (e.g., heterosexual or cisgender youth) were retained when the results were disaggregated and risk factors specific to SGMY could be extracted. Furthermore, studies were excluded if teen dating violence was examined primarily as a predictor or risk factor for other outcomes, rather than being investigated as the main outcome variable itself.

2.2. Search Strategy and Selection Criteria

The authors performed a systematic search using multiple databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, and APA PsycInfo. To ensure specificity to the teen dating context, the search strategy prioritized the term ‘dating violence’ rather than broader constructs such as ‘partner violence,’ which risked retrieving studies focusing on adult or marital relationships. However, to enhance sensitivity, a wide range of Boolean combinations and truncations were employed to capture variation in age groups, sexual orientation, and the terminology related to risk factors. While this decision may have limited the inclusion of studies using broader terms, it was aimed at maximizing conceptual alignment with the adolescent dating context.

The search syntax was as follows:

(teen* OR boy* OR girl* OR adolescen* OR youth OR young* OR “young people”) AND (“dating violence”) AND (“risk factor*” OR antecent* OR predict* OR correlate* OR associate*) AND (“sex* minorit*” OR LGB OR LGBT* OR gay* OR lesbian* OR homosexual* OR “sexual orientation” OR “same-sex sexual*” OR trans* OR queer).

The use of the wildcard truncations allowed authors to capture all potential variants of the respective concepts. The search fields included the title, abstract, and keywords. All searches were performed on 10 December 2024. The titles and abstracts obtained from the database search were exported in the .ris format and manually screened using the Rayyan systematic review management software. After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts were screened, and potentially relevant studies resulted in the designated folder in the Rayyan software [24]. Thereafter, the authors independently reviewed the full texts to assess them for eligibility, and decisions regarding conflicts on their final inclusion in the systematic review were made via discussion.

2.3. Data Extraction

Two authors carried out data extraction through a synoptic table to identify the relevant objects of the eligible studies, including the title, author(s) and publication year, geographical location ethnicity of participants, study design, sample size, age and sex of participants, target of the study (sexual minorities only or general population), type of TDV analyzed, risk factors, measures, and key findings. A third researcher was consulted to resolve conflicts in case of disagreements.

2.4. Quality Appraisal

The JBI Critical Appraisal Tools [25] for cross-sectional and cohort studies were used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. The checklist for analytical cross-sectional studies evaluates key methodological aspects such as the clarity of the criteria for inclusion in the sample, the measurement validity and reliability of predictors and outcome variables, and the identification and control of confounding factors. The checklist for cohort studies focuses on the comparability of groups, accurate measurement of predictors and outcomes, completeness of follow-up, and strategies to address potential confounding. These tools support the systematic and transparent evaluation of study quality in evidence synthesis. Studies were not excluded based on methodological quality.

Given the heterogeneity of the study designs and outcome operationalizations, a meta-analysis was not feasible. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted. Study characteristics and risk factors were tabulated (

Table 1. Summary of sample characteristics.

Author(s), Year	Country	Racial/Ethnic Identity	Study Design	N	Age	Minorities and Non-Minorities	Minorities Only	SM Subgroup
Arnoud et al. (2024) [26]	Brazil	White, People of color	Cross-sectional	350	16–19	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual; Cis women; Non-Cis persons
Cole et al. (2024) [27]	USA	Native+, Asian or Asian American, Black, African, or African American, Hispanic or Latino/a/x, White, Multiracial	Cross-sectional	71,801	Grade 9 and 11	X		Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Queer, Pansexual, Questioning (LGBQ+), Not described in any of these ways
Dank et al. (2014) [28]	USA	Caucasian/White, African American/Black, Hispanic/Latino(a), Asian American, Native American, Mixed race	Cross-sectional	3745	Grade 16–19	X		Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Questioning, Queer, Other
Edwards et al. (2021) [29]	USA	American Indian (AI) and Alaska Native (AN)	Cross-sectional	400	12–18	X		Bisexual, Lesbian, Other (undefined)
Exner-Cortens et al. (2023) [30]	Canada	White, Black, Latin American, Indigenous, Asian, Other (including multiracial)	Cross-sectional	3779	Grade 9 and 10	X		Non-binary
Fix, Nava, and Rodriguez (2022) [31]	USA	Black, White, Asian American, Native North American, Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Hispanic and Latino	Cross-sectional	88,219	High school students	X		Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Questioning their sexual orientation (LGBQ)
Hazelwood (2023) [32]	USA	White, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Other	Cross-sectional	15,187	Grade 9–12	X		Gay/Lesbian, Bisexual, Unsure
Hequembourga, Livingston & Wang (2020) [33]	USA	White or non-White	Cohort	800	13–15	X		Bisexual, Mostly Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian, Not Sure
Herbitter et al. (2022) [34]	USA	Mixed race	Cross-sectional	1276	14–17		X	Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Queer
Hill et al. (2022) [35]	USA	Black/African American, Multiracial, White, Other, Hispanic/Latino	Cross-sectional	246	13–19	X		Sexual Minority Status
Kiekens et al. (2022) [36]	USA	White, Black/African American, Native American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, Bi/multiracial, Other	Cross-sectional	12,534	13–17	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Heterosexual, Pansexual, Asexual, Questioning, Other
Levine & Button (2021) [37]	USA	White, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Multiracial	Cross-sectional	12,868	Grade 9–12	X		Sexual Minority
Martin-Storey et al. (2021) [38]	USA	Not reported	Cross-sectional	87,532	Grade 9 and 11	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Questioning
Messinger et al. (2021) [39]	USA	Race: American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian American, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, White, Multiracial Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino	Cross-sectional	398	13–19	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Other
Norris et al. (2022) [40]	USA	Not reported	Cross-sectional	1622	Grade 10	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Queer, Not identified in a sexual orientation
Olsen et al. (2020) [41]	USA	Race/ethnicity: White, non-Hispanic; Black, non-Hispanic; Hispanic	Cross-sectional	9917	Grade 9–12	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Not sure
Peters, Hatzenbuehler & Davidson (2017) [42]	USA	Race/ethnicity: White, Black/AA, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Other	Cross-sectional	11,570	Grade 9–12	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Not sure
Petit, Blais & Hébert (2023) [43]	Canada	Not reported	Cohort	4069	Grade 10–12	X		Same-gender sexual attraction, Multi-gender sexual attraction
Ray et al. (2023) [44]	USA	Not reported	Cross-sectional	2245	Grade 6–8	X		Attracted to Boys, Attracted to Girls, Attracted to Boys and Girls, Not Attracted to Boys or Girls, Prefer not to answer for attraction
Reuter, Sharp & Temple (2015) [45]	USA	White, non-White	Cohort	702	Average age 17.06 years (SD = 0.77)	X		Mostly Heterosexual, Completely Homosexual, Not sure
Rostad et al. (2019) [46]	USA	White, Black, Hispanic	Cross-sectional	18,704	Grade 9–12	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
Sabina et al. (2022) [47]	USA	Not reported	Cross-sectional	1525	12–18	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Unsure/Transition
Scheer et al. (2021) [48]	USA	White, Multiracial, Black or African American, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian American, Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaska Native	Cross-sectional	7185	Grade 9–12	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual
Stroem et al. (2021) [49]	USA	White, African American or Black, Mixed Racial Background, Other, Hispanic	Cross-sectional	1349	14–15	X		Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Questioning, Queer, Pansexual, Asexual, Other or Unsure, Female-to-Male (FTM)/Transgender Male/Trans Man, Male-to-Female (MTF)/Transgender Female/Trans Woman, Gender-queer/Non-binary/Pangender, Other
Thaxton, Nguyen & Prata (2023) [50]	USA	White, AAPI/Native Hawaiian, Black/African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Hispanic/Latino, Mixed	Cross-sectional	3424	Grade 9–12		X	Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Questioning

,

Table 2. Quality appraisal of cross-sectional studies.

Author(s) and Publication Year	1. Were the Criteria for Inclusion in the Sample Clearly Defined?	2. Were the Study Subjects and the Setting Described in Detail?	3. Was the Exposure Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?	4. Were Objective Standard Criteria Used for Measurement of the Condition?	5. Were Confounding Factors Identified?	6. Were Strategies to Deal with Confounding Factors Stated?	7. Were the Outcomes Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?	8. Was Appropriate Statistical Analysis Used?
Arnoud et al. (2024) [26]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Cole et al. (2024) [27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Dank et al. (2014) [28]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Edwards et al. (2021) [29]	No	Yes	Yes		No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Exner-Cortens et al. (2023) [30]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Fix, Nava, and Rodriguez (2021) [31]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Hazelwood (2023) [32]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Herbitter et al. (2022) [34]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Hill et al. (2022) [35]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Kiekens et al. (2022) [36]	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Levine & Button (2021) [37]	Unclear	Yes	Yes	No	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Martin-Storey et al. (2021) [38]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Messinger et al. (2021) [39]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Norris et al. (2022) [40]	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Not applicable	Unclear	Yes
Olsen et al. (2020) [41]	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Peters Hatzenbuehler & Davidson (2017) [42]	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	No	Not applicable	Unclear	Yes
Ray et al. (2023) [44]	Unclear	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Rostad et al. (2020) [46]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	Yes
Sabina et al. (2022) [47]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Scheer et al. (2021) [48]	No	Yes	No	Unclear	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Stroem et al. (2021) [49]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	No	Not applicable	Yes	Yes
Thaxton Nguyen & Prata (2023) [50]	No	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes

,

Table 3. Quality appraisal of cohort studies.

Author(s), Year	1. Were the Two Groups Similar and Recruited from the Same Population?	2. Were the Exposures Measured Similarly to Assign People to Both Exposed and Unexposed Groups?	3. Was the Exposure Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?	4. Were Confounding Factors Identified?	5. Were Strategies to Deal with Confounding Factors Stated?	6. Were the Groups/Participants Free of the Outcome at the Start of the Study (or at the Moment of Exposure)?	7. Were the Outcomes Measured in a Valid and Reliable Way?	8. Was the Follow-up Time Reported and Long Enough for Outcomes to Occur?	9. Was Follow-up Complete, and if not, Were the Reasons for Loss of Follow-up Described and Explored?	10. Were Strategies to Address Incomplete Follow-up Utilized?	11. Was Appropriate Statistical Analysis Used?
Hequembourg, Livingston & Wang (2020) [33]	Yes	Not applicable	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Yes
Petit, Blais & Hébert (2023) [43]	Yes	Not applicable	Yes	No	Not applicable	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes
Reuter, Sharp & Temple (2015) [45]	Yes	Not applicable	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Unclear	Unclear	Yes

and

Table 4. Risk factors for TDV and operationalizations of the outcome.

Author(s), Year	Risk Factors That Significantly Predicted the Outcome	Outcome Measures	General TDV	TDV Victimization	TDV Perpetration	Type of TDV
Arnoud et al. (2024) [26]	Race; Family income; Gender; Sexual orientation (bisexual); Type of school (private or public); Attitudes towards gender and violence; Ambivalent sexism beliefs; Relationship status	Dating Violence Questionnaire based on Dating Violence Questionnaire—R [51].		X		Psychological, Physical, Sexual, Verbal, Stalking
Cole et al. (2024) [27]	Combinations of these factors: LGBQ+ students of color, transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, unsure of their gender, assigned male at birth; LGBQ+ students assigned female at birth, enrolled in a Greater Minnesota school; Native+ or missing race LGBQ+ students, assigned female at birth, enrolled in a Twin Cities metro area school	One item extracted from the Minnesota Student survey [52].		X		Sexual
Dank et al. (2014) [28]	State ID—Pennsylvania; Race (non-white); Gender (female); Poor grades in school; Alcohol use; Marijuana use; Serious drug use; Number of delinquent behaviors in the last year; Sexual activity (any in lifetime); Psychosocial adjustment, frequency of depressive symptoms, anger/hostility, and anxiety; Social interactions, hours per day on computer	Teen Dating Violence and Abuse (created by the authors); Physical Dating Violence, 16 items extracted from Foshee [53]; Psychological Dating Abuse, 21 items adapted from the Michigan Department of Community Health’s [54] control and fear scales and Foshee’s [53] psychological abuse scales; Cyber Dating Abuse: 16 questions from Picard [55] and Griezel [56]. Sexual Coercion: two items from Foshee’s [53] physical abuse scale, one from Zweig et al.’s [57] scale, and one additional one from Zweig et al. [58].		X		Psychological, Physical, Sexual, Cyber
Edwards et al. (2021) [29]	Age (being older); Sex (female); Sexual minority; School mattering; Depressive symptoms; Suicidal ideation; Alcohol use	Sexual Coercion: two items from Foshee’s [53] physical abuse scale (being forced to have sex and forced to do sexual things that person did not want to), one from Zweig et al.’s [57] scale measuring unwanted sexual intercourse (having sexual intercourse when person did not want to), and one additional one from Zweig et al. [58].		X		Physical, Sexual
Exner-Cortens et al. (2023) [30]	Bullying perpetration and victimization; Social marginalization	Three items for victimization, three items for perpetration, adapted from several existing ADV measures.		X	X	Psychological, Physical, Cyber
Fix, Nava, and Rodriguez (2022) [31]	Externalizing symptoms—fighting, weapon carrying, risky sexual behaviors; Race/ethnicity; Internalizing symptoms—sad or hopeless, suicide ideation/attempt; These combinations: Internalizing symptoms—sad or hopeless, suicide ideation/attempt, being LGBQ; Internalizing symptoms—sad or hopeless, suicide ideation/attempt, being female	One item for Physical dating violence, and one item for Sexual dating violence (created by the authors).	X			Physical, Sexual
Hazelwood (2023) [32]	LGB+; Male; Age; Black or African American; Other race/ethnicity; Ever got into a physical fight; Had sexual intercourse with four or more persons; Ever used illicit substance; Currently binge drinking; Had symptoms of depression; Past year suicidal ideation; Ever been bullied; Bisexual; Not sure minorities; Not sure minorities; Minorities—male; Minorities—Black or African American; Minorities—ever got into a physical fight; Minorities—had sexual intercourse with four or more persons; Minorities—ever used illicit substance; Minorities—currently binge drinking; Minorities—had symptoms of depression; Minorities—past year suicidal ideation; Minorities—ever been bullied	One item for Physical dating violence, and one item for Sexual dating violence—binary measures (created by the authors).		X		Physical, Sexual
Hequembourga, Livingston & Wang (2020) [33]	Sexual Minorities—adolescent relationship abuse, bullying victimization, sexual harassment	The Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory—Short Form—CADRI [59,60].	X			Sexual
Herbitter et al. (2022) [34]	Sexual minority girls	The Conflicts in Adolescent Dating Relationships—CADRI [60].		X	X	Physical, Sexual
Hill et al. (2022) [35]	Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitudes, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to this group associated with grade; Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy, 8th grade; Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy, 9th grade; Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy, 10th grade; Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy, 11th grade; Parent with high school education or less, low gender-equitable attitudes, low contraception self-efficacy, low condom self-efficacy, 12th grade; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitude, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to the group associated with grade 8; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitude, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to the group associated with grade 9; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitude, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to the group associated with grade 10; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitude, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to the group associated with grade 11; Parent with high school education or less, high gender-equitable attitude, high contraception self-efficacy, high condom self-efficacy, belonging to the group associated with grade 12	Modified version of the revised conflict tactics scale by Cascardi et al. [61,62].	X			Psychological, Physical, Sexual
Kiekens et al. (2022) [36]	Sexual identity: bisexual; Gender identity: cisgender girls; Gender identity: transgender boys; Gender identity: non binary/assigned male at birth; Few dating experiences and low dating violence, assault and harassment, drink frequency; Few dating experiences and low dating violence, assault and harassment, binge drinking; Intermediate exposure to harassment and assault, drink frequency; Intermediate exposure to harassment and assault, binge drinking; High exposure to dating violence, drink frequency; Gender identity: cisgender girl, drink frequency, binge drinking; Gender identity: transgender boys, drink frequency, binge drinking; Gender identity: transgender girl, drink frequency; Gender identity: non-binary/assigned male at birth, drink frequency, binge drinking	One item for Physical dating violence, and one item for Sexual dating violence (created by the authors; based on [63]).	X			Physical, Sexual
Levine & Button (2021) [37]	Sex (male or female); Sexuality (sexual minority)	Eleven items for victimization created by the authors of the survey from where the authors extracted the data.		X		Physical, Sexual
Martin-Storey et al. (2021) [38]	Sexual orientation: gay or lesbian; Sexual orientation: bisexual; Sexual orientation: questioning; Sexual orientation: transgender; Sexual orientation: gender non-conformity; Peer victimization; Bullying based on gender; Bullying based on gender expression; Psychological parental abuse; Physical parental abuse; Witnessing domestic abuse; Sexual abuse by family member	Three items for victimization (one per each type of assessed violence); three items for perpetration (one per each type of assessed violence) created by the authors.		X	X	Verbal, Physical, Sexual
Messinger et al. (2021) [39]	Sexual minorities	Five dichotomous (yes/no) questions for victimization and five dichotomous (yes/no) questions drawn from a larger 28-item measure [64].		X	X	Psychological, Physical
Norris et al. (2022) [40]	Sexual minorities; Gender (girls)	Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory—CADRI [60].		X	X	Physical, Sexual
Olsen et al. (2020) [41]	Sexual identity: not sure, male; Sexual identity: LGBQ, male; Sexual identity: LGBQ, female	One item for Physical dating violence, and one item for Sexual dating violence (created by the authors. Responses were recorded as continuous frequency variables and used to create a four-category composite measure (physical only, sexual only, both, none), as well as a dichotomous variable (any vs. no TDV).		X		Physical, Sexual
Peters, Hatzenbuehler & Davidson (2017) [42]	Male; Black/AA; Hispanic/Latino; Other race; Sexual identity: gay or lesbian; Sexual identity: bisexual; Sexual identity: unsure; 12th grade; Other grade or ungraduated; ≤12 years old; ≥18 years old; Bullied at school; EBullied	One item extracted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) [65].		X		Physical
Petit, Blais & Hébert (2023) [43]	Multigender sexual attraction combined with adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), psychological distress, low self-esteem, substance use, number of sexual partners, revictimization risk factors, acceptance of TDV, TDV victimization in previous relationships, TDV perpetration in current relationship, peer victimization, sexual harassment, affiliation with friends that are victims of TDV, parental support, lifetime multi-gender sexual partners	Physical TDV: adapted version of the short form of the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory—CADRI [60]. Sexual TDV: Nine items extracted from the Sexual Experiences Survey—SES [66].		X		Physical, Sexual
Ray et al. (2023) [44]	Attraction to both boys and girls; Boys reporting any attraction to boys	TDV: Seven items adapted from Shifting Boundaries [67]; Sexual Harassment Victimization: Four-item modified version of the Shifting Boundaries Sexual Harassment Scale [67].		X		Physical, Sexual
Reuter, Sharp & Temple (2015) [45]	Sexual minority: Hostility; Alcohol use; Exposure to father-to-mother violence (victimization only)	Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory—CADRI [60].		X	X	Psychological, Physical, Sexual
Rostad et al. (2019) [46]	Female; Sexual identity, male; Sexual identity, female; Gay; Bisexual; Bisexual, female	Two items extracted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) [65].		X		Physical, Sexual
Sabina et al. (2022) [47]	Sexual Minority (Latin teens); Depression; Anxiety; Hostility; Social support total; Significant other; Family; Friends	TDV victimization: modified version of the Juvenile Victimization Questionnaire—JVQ [68]; conflict tactics scale-2 short form that was modeled after the CTS2, using only two items from each of the subscales, one focusing on severe behavior, the other on less severe behavior [69].		X		Psychological, Physical, Sexual, Stalking
Scheer et al. (2021) [48]	Gay or lesbian—lifetime rape; Bisexual—lifetime rape; Bisexual—past-year sexual victimization; Bisexual—past-year sexual victimization in dating relationships; Bisexual—past-year physical victimization in dating relationships; Bisexual—any victimization; Gay or lesbian—past-year physical victimization in dating relationships; Gay or lesbian—any victimization	Two items extracted from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) [65].		X		Physical, Sexual
Stroem et al. (2021) [49]	Female sex at birth—gender minority; female sex at birth—cisgender sexual minority; African American or black—gender minority; Parent income lower than the average—cisgender sexual minority; Do not know the mother’s education—cisgender sexual minority; Completed or attended graduated school—cisgender sexual minority; Lifetime emotional ARA—cisgender sexual minority; Lifetime emotional ARA—transgender boys and non-binary youth assigned female at birth; Lifetime emotional ARA—transgender girls and non-binary youth assigned male at birth; Lifetime physical ARA—cisgender sexual minority; Lifetime physical ARA—transgender boys and non-binary youth assigned female at birth; Lifetime physical ARA—transgender girls and non-binary youth assigned male at birth; Most recent sexual ARA—cisgender sexual minority; Most recent sexual ARA—transgender boys and non-binary youth assigned female at birth; Most recent sexual ARA—transgender girls and non-binary youth assigned male at birth; Any ARA—cisgender sexual minority; Any ARA—transgender boys and non-binary youth assigned female at birth; Any ARA—transgender girls and non-binary youth assigned male at birth	Four items for sexual, seven items for physical, four items for emotional, created by the authors of the survey from where the authors extracted the data.		X		Physical, Sexual, Emotional
Thaxton, Nguyen & Prata (2023) [50]	Sexual minority identity; History of drug use; Gender (male); Sad/hopeless; Binge drinking	Two items created by the authors of the survey from where the authors extracted the data.		X		Physical, Sexual

), and themes were synthesized according to an ecological framework (individual, relational, or structural). No sensitivity analyses or heterogeneity tests were conducted. As this review did not involve meta-analysis, no effect sizes or confidence intervals were computed. However, where available, original studies’ effect estimates (e.g., odd ratios or beta coefficients) were narratively summarized.

3. Results

3.1. Study Selection and Characteristics

The initial database search identified a total of 313 records. Before screening the titles and abstracts, 168 records were removed because they were identified as duplicates through the Rayyan software. Subsequently, 145 were screened based on their title and abstract. A total of 64 records were excluded for the wrong population, and another 41 records were excluded for the wrong outcome, resulting in a total of 40 studies that were assessed for eligibility by reading the full texts. Thus, fifteen studies were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria: six studies focused on the wrong outcome (i.e., TDV was analyzed as an antecedent/risk factor, not as an outcome), eight studies were excluded because the participants did not fall within the age range specified by the inclusion criteria, and one study was excluded for the wrong publication type (i.e., doctoral thesis). Ultimately, 25 studies met all the inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. The search results are shown in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram (Figure 1).

The included studies are characterized by cross-sectional (N = 22) and longitudinal (N = 3) research designs. They were published between 2014 and 2024, with most conducted in the United States (N = 22), followed by Canada (N = 2) and South America (i.e., Brazil, N = 1). The sample sizes varied substantially, ranging from 246 participants to over 15,000. The age of participants was consistently within the 12–19 range, in accordance with the inclusion criteria, and studies either focused specifically on sexual and gender minority youths (SGMYs) or included comparison groups. Table 1 shows the synoptic table, including these characteristics for all included studies.

3.2. Methodological Quality

Table 2 and Table 3 summarize the quality appraisal of all the included studies (respectively, for cross-sectional and cohort studies), conducted using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tools. Overall, most studies demonstrated a low to moderate risk of bias, although recurring methodological limitations were identified in specific domains. Regarding the cross-sectional studies, sample selection was adequately reported in the majority of studies: a total of 17 out of 22 had clearly defined inclusion criteria, and all studies provided a detailed description of the study population and setting. In terms of measurement tools, only a small subset of studies (N = 5) employed validated instruments such as the CADRI [60] or equivalent tools to assess TDV. The majority relied on ad hoc measures or single-item indicators developed specifically for each study, often lacking psychometric validation. This heterogeneity in measurement strategies complicates cross-study comparisons and limits the reliability of outcome assessments. Moreover, only about half of the studies measured exposures (predictors) using validated and reliable tools, with eight studies receiving a negative or unclear judgment in this domain. In addition, ten cross-sectional studies showed limitations or uncertainty in the measurement of outcomes. In relation to the cohort studies, all of them measured predictors and outcomes in a valid and reliable way. Nevertheless, two of the three studies provided incomplete information on follow-up procedures, and none of the studies clearly described the strategies employed to address incomplete follow-up. One critical domain shared by cross-sectional and cohort studies is the insufficient analysis of the potential confounding factors, with only two studies clearly identifying and reporting strategies to control for potential confounders, but this becomes particularly complex in studies where outcomes are shaped by behavioral, attitudinal, or lifestyle variables. The quality assessment showed an inter-rater agreement of 0.91.

No formal assessment of the certainty of the evidence (e.g., using GRADE) was conducted. However, methodological strengths and limitations were discussed qualitatively to inform the interpretation of the findings.

3.3. Forms of Teen Dating Violence Investigated

Physical and sexual dating violence were the most commonly assessed forms, each appearing in 23 of the included studies. Psychological violence was assessed in seven studies, followed by cyber violence (two studies), verbal violence (two studies), and emotional violence (one study). Some studies included stalking as a distinct category of TDV (two studies), typically conceptualized as unwanted surveillance or persistent harassment by a dating partner. In studies where stalking was not treated as a separate outcome, it was most often subsumed under psychological violence, especially when associated with coercive control, verbal threats, or monitoring behaviors. Notably, one study [39] included verbal violence under the umbrella of psychological violence.

Several studies examined multiple forms of violence simultaneously; the most frequent combination involved both physical and sexual violence (21 studies). However, only seven studies explicitly explored the bidirectionality of violence (i.e., both victimization and perpetration), and eight made no clear distinction between roles, treating TDV as a general construct. This reflects an ongoing methodological limitation in the field. Overall, fifteen studies assessed only victimization, six addressed both victimization and perpetration, and four did not differentiate between them (Table 4).

3.4. Risk Factors Identified

Across the 25 included studies, the risk factors for teen dating violence (TDV) were classified across three ecological levels: individual, relational, and contextual/structural.

Table 4 summarizes the risk factors identified by each included study, including the form of TDV assessed and the subgroup analyses where applicable. Due to heterogeneity, no statistical aggregation was conducted.

3.4.1. Individual-Level Factors

A total of 18 studies reported individual-level risk factors. Among the most recurrent were mental health difficulties such as depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and suicidal ideation [27,29,31,32,34,36,43,47,50]. These were linked to both victimization and the perpetration of TDV.

Substance use (including alcohol, marijuana, and other drugs) also emerged frequently [28,29,31,32,36,43,50], alongside externalizing behaviors (e.g., fighting, delinquency, risky sexual behavior) [28,31,32].

Moreover, minority stress—including internalized stigma, identity concealment, and anticipated rejection—was a salient predictor among SGMY, particularly in studies focused on bisexual, transgender, and questioning youth [26,27,30,34,36,38,48].

These associations are detailed in Table 4, including forms of TDV and subgroup-specific findings.

3.4.2. Relational-Level Factors

A total of 11 studies identified relational-level stressors, primarily involving family rejection, lack of parental support, and peer victimization or marginalization [26,31,34,35,38,43,45,47,49] (Table 4).

Some studies supported an intergenerational transmission of violence, where exposure to domestic conflict or parental intimate partner violence was linked to increased likelihood of adolescents engaging in or tolerating violence in their own relationships [35,38,45].

Relational isolation and limited peer connectedness, particularly among marginalized youth, were also highlighted as increasing vulnerability to TDV [34,43].

3.4.3. Contextual and Structural-Level Factors

A total of 12 studies identified contextual or structural factors contributing to TDV. These included school-based discrimination, the absence of LGBTQ+ affirming adults, and non-inclusive educational environments [27,31,32,40,47,49] (Table 4).

Furthermore, systemic forces such as community-level homophobia, racism, and economic marginalization were shown to have cumulative effects on stress and exposure to violence [27,35,42,45,49] (Tabel 4).

A key structural risk factor was the lack of inclusive, comprehensive relationship and sexuality education, which may undermine adolescents’ ability to engage in healthy romantic and sexual relationships and increase their vulnerability to abuse [43,47].

3.5. Subgroup Differences and Intersectional Risks

Several of the methodological issues identified in the introduction were confirmed during data extraction. Across the 25 studies, the terminology used to describe sexual and gender minority participants was highly variable, with some studies conflating sexual orientation and gender identity under umbrella terms such as ‘LGBT’ or ‘non-heterosexual.’ Only 10 studies explicitly disaggregated the findings by both sex assigned at birth and current gender identity. Furthermore, definitions of ‘sexual minority’ ranged from self-identified labels (e.g., gay, bisexual, queer) to behavior-based indicators (e.g., same-sex attraction or experience). This definitional heterogeneity limits the comparability of results and introduces ambiguity in interpreting subgroup-specific risk factors.

Out of the 25 studies, 15 explicitly addressed subgroup differences among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). Adolescents identifying as bisexual or pansexual emerged as especially vulnerable, with several studies [26,36,38,43,48] documenting elevated risks of psychological, sexual, and verbal TDV. This pattern was often attributed to biphobia and the experience of “double marginalization”, wherein individuals face stigma both within heterosexual communities and LGBTQ+ spaces.

Transgender, non-binary, and genderqueer youth were also identified as high-risk groups. Their elevated exposure to TDV—particularly physical and sexual—was associated with factors such as misgendering, lack of affirmation, invisibility in school curricula, and the broader systemic invalidation of gender identity [3,31,49]. For instance, Stroem et al. [49] found that both transgender boys and non-binary youth assigned female at birth faced increased likelihoods of emotional and sexual abuse.

Only five studies adopted an explicitly intersectional framework, analyzing how overlapping identities such as race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status shaped TDV exposure. Among these, studies [27,35,42,45,49] revealed that racialized SMY—particularly those identifying as Black, Latinx, or Native—faced compounded risks due to community-level violence, economic disadvantage, and structural discrimination. For example, Cole et al. [26] demonstrated that sexual minority youth (SMY) of color were disproportionately represented in high-risk classes of sexual TDV victimization, underscoring the compounded vulnerability associated with intersecting marginalized identities.

This evidence underscores the importance of addressing multiple axes of marginalization when designing prevention and intervention efforts for TDV among sexual and gender minority adolescents.

4. Discussions

4.1. High Prevalence and Heterogeneity Within SGMY Populations

This systematic review underscores that sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY) are consistently identified as being at elevated risk of various forms of teen dating violence (TDV), particularly psychological, physical, and sexual victimization. Although the prevalence rates were not the primary focus of this review and were not systematically extracted, several studies reported disproportionately higher levels of TDV among SGMY compared to their heterosexual and cisgender peers. A subset of studies further suggested that bisexual and pansexual youth may face unique or heightened vulnerabilities, e.g., [70]. However, such differences were often contingent upon the specific study samples, comparison groups, and operational definitions employed. These findings highlight the internal heterogeneity of the SGMY population and point to the necessity of prevention and intervention efforts that move beyond broad LGBTQ+ categorizations to more precisely address the distinct needs and lived experiences of specific subgroups.

4.2. Methodological Limitations and Inconsistent Operationalization

A major methodological limitation across the reviewed studies concerns the inconsistent and often inadequate operationalization of teen dating violence (TDV). Although validated instruments—such as the Conflict in Adolescent Dating Relationships Inventory (CADRI; [60])—are available, only 5 out of 25 studies employed this tool or one of its versions [33,34,40,43,45]. Instead, the majority of studies relied on ad hoc or single-item self-report measures, developed specifically for each study and often lacking in psychometric validation and standardization. This limits both the reliability of the findings and the comparability of results across the literature.

There was also considerable heterogeneity in the definition and scope of TDV across studies. Some investigations focused solely on victimization, others on perpetration, and only a small number explored the bidirectional nature of violence.

Moreover, while physical and sexual TDV were nearly always included, fewer studies examined psychological, verbal, emotional, or cyber forms of aggression. This underrepresentation appears to reflect both the limited operationalization of non-physical forms of TDV in research design and broader societal factors that inhibit the recognition of such behaviors as abusive. Adolescents are rarely educated to be able to identify subtle forms of coercion, jealousy, manipulation, or emotional control as violence, which may result in lower reporting and salience in both empirical studies and public discourse.

This dual invisibility—at the level of research instruments and social recognition—complicates both measurement and interpretation. Supporting this interpretation, experimental findings from recent studies (e.g., vignette-based designs) indicate that key psychosocial mechanisms such as romantic myth endorsement, victim-blaming, and perceived seriousness show significant associations with TDV only when the scenario involves physical violence. These associations tend to disappear or weaken when adolescents evaluate equivalent emotional abuse scenarios, suggesting that psychological violence remains insufficiently acknowledged and cognitively processed. Yet, these behaviors can serve as early warning signs and precursors to more severe forms of abuse, including physical and sexual victimization [71].

This pattern not only highlights a critical gap in the methodological design of TDV research, but also points to an urgent educational need: comprehensive affective and sexual education should be introduced into school curricula—ideally starting in early grades—to support adolescents in recognizing red flags and unhealthy dynamics in romantic and sexual relationships. Improving adolescents’ ability to identify non-physical forms of violence is essential both for their own relational well-being and for the development of more accurate, meaningful research in this field, e.g., [72].

Potential reporting biases were not formally assessed. Nonetheless, reliance on the published peer-reviewed literature may have introduced publication bias, as studies with null or negative findings may have been underrepresented.

4.3. The Central Role of Minority Stress and Mental Health

One of the most robust themes emerging from the review concerns the role of minority stress—such as internalized stigma, identity concealment, and anticipated rejection—in increasing TDV risk, specifically among SGMY. These stressors contribute to emotional distress, compromise self-advocacy, and may normalize unhealthy relationship dynamics in ways that are unique to this population. In line with minority stress theory [73], such identity-based stressors are compounded by psychological vulnerabilities (e.g., depression, anxiety, low self-esteem), which are common in both SGMY and heterosexual youth, but may manifest more severely or chronically in SGMY. In contrast, behavioral correlates like substance use, poor emotional regulation, and early sexual activity—while not specific to SGMY—appear to interact with minority-specific stress to amplify risk. These behavioral factors may represent maladaptive coping strategies that develop in response to chronic exposure to minority stress. For instance, substance use or early sexual activity may serve as mechanisms to manage emotional distress linked to stigma, discrimination, or identity concealment, while poor emotional regulation may reflect the psychological toll of sustained social invalidation. Distinguishing these overlapping yet distinct contributors is essential for tailoring interventions. Moreover, these findings highlight the importance of addressing intrapersonal and psychological dimensions in prevention efforts.

4.4. Relational and Structural Risk Factors

This review underscores the pivotal role of relational and structural environments in shaping vulnerability to teen dating violence (TDV) among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). Relational and structural risk factors for TDV include both general and SGMY-specific mechanisms. For example, family rejection, peer marginalization, and poor parental support are common vulnerabilities among adolescents, but carry distinct meanings for SGMY, especially when tied to stigma about sexual orientation or gender identity. In these cases, rejection may result not only in emotional isolation, but also in threats of homelessness or loss of safety. Family rejection, lack of parental support, and peer marginalization were consistently identified as key interpersonal risk factors in 11 studies [26,31,34,38,43,45,47,49].

Another significant pattern was the intergenerational transmission of violence. Several studies demonstrated that exposure to domestic conflict, parental intimate partner violence, or childhood abuse increased the likelihood of both perpetrating and experiencing TDV in adolescence, in general; in the case of SGMY, this can intersect with minority stress to compound relational vulnerability [35,38,45].

Additionally, some studies highlighted forms of psychological violence unique to SGMY, such as non-consensual outing by a dating partner. This coercive act—where one partner threatens to disclose the other’s sexual orientation or gender identity without consent—emerged as a particularly harmful control tactic. Its impact is especially severe in contexts of low parental support, where fear of rejection or expulsion from the home amplifies the psychological harm [43,45].

Other forms of psychological violence specific to SGMY reported in the literature include misgendering, the intentional use of deadnames, the invalidation of identity, and manipulative threats involving disclosure to peers, teachers, or family members. These tactics align with the construct of ‘identity abuse’, which encompasses behaviors aimed at undermining or controlling a partner’s sexual or gender identity. As Woulfe & Goodman [74] suggest, such forms of abuse are particularly damaging for LGBTQ+ youth due to their entanglement with stigma, social rejection, and fears of isolation. Including this perspective helps to illuminate the unique contours of psychological violence within SGMY relationships and underscores the importance of tailored prevention strategies.

At the structural level, some risk factors (e.g., school-based violence, lack of relationship education) affect most youth; however, the absence of LGBTQ+ affirming adults, heteronormative curricula, and the systemic erasure of queer identities represent uniquely harmful environmental conditions for SGMY. These conditions may intensify the impact of otherwise common structural adversities, reinforcing the importance of inclusive systems. These barriers were reported in 12 studies [26,30,31,39,42,46,48], underscoring how educational invisibility and the systemic erasure of LGBTQ+ identities contribute to SGMY vulnerability. Conversely, protective relational environments—including supportive teachers, affirming peers, and inclusive curricula—were associated with lower levels of victimization [43,47].

Furthermore, the role of race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status within SGMY populations warrants further investigation, given the notable gap in the literature concerning these intersectional dimensions. While existing evidence suggests that factors such as residing in deprived or violent neighborhoods [75], economic disadvantage, and racial discrimination [76] contribute to youth violence in general, the current body of TDV research does not provide sufficient data to assess the specific impact of these variables on SGMY. Only a handful of studies [27,35,42,45,49] explored how structural racism and economic inequality intersect with gender and sexual minority status to shape vulnerability to TDV.

These intersecting forms of oppression highlight that TDV among SGMY cannot be fully understood—or effectively addressed—without attending to the broader social and structural conditions in which these adolescents live. Future research should prioritize intersectional approaches that examine how race, class, disability, neurodiversity, and other axes of identity interact with sexual and gender minority status to shape vulnerability.

Overall, the patterns described support the need to investigate TDV through the lens of ecological models of adolescent development [77]. Prevention strategies must therefore move beyond individual-level interventions to address the relational and systemic determinants of violence.

4.5. Research Gaps and Future Directions

Notably, 20 out of the 25 studies included in this review were published between 2020 and 2024, indicating a recent and growing academic interest in the topic of TDV among SGMY. This trend likely reflects broader societal shifts toward the greater visibility of LGBTQ+ issues, as well as increased recognition of the need for inclusive and intersectional research frameworks.

While this review provides valuable insights into the nature and correlates of teen dating violence (TDV) among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY), several significant research gaps remain that limit the field’s capacity to develop fully informed, effective interventions.

A primary limitation lies in the unidirectional focus on victimization. The majority of included studies investigated TDV exclusively from the perspective of victims, with minimal attention to perpetration or the bidirectional nature of violence. Only a small subset of studies examined both roles, and even fewer explicitly addressed the reciprocal or mutual dynamics that frequently characterize adolescent romantic relationships. This narrow focus constrains a more nuanced understanding of how power, aggression, and vulnerability interact within adolescent partnerships, particularly in SGMY populations.

Another notable shortcoming is the limited application of intersectional frameworks. Despite growing recognition of the heterogeneity within SGMY groups, few studies systematically analyze how intersecting social identities—such as race, class, disability, neurodivergence, or immigration status—shape patterns of risk and resilience. This gap hampers the field’s ability to account for the compounding effects of multiple axes of marginalization, which may heighten vulnerability to TDV in ways that are distinct from those experienced by more privileged SGMY subgroups.

The absence of longitudinal research also represents a serious methodological limitation. Most studies relied on cross-sectional designs, which prevent researchers from tracing developmental trajectories or establishing causal relationships between early psychosocial stressors, evolving relational dynamics, and subsequent involvement in dating violence. Longitudinal studies are essential to identify how risk and resilience factors interact over time, and to support the design of developmentally appropriate and temporally sensitive interventions.

Finally, the geographic concentration of the literature raises concerns about cultural representativeness. The vast majority of studies (N = 22) were conducted in the United States, with only two based in Canada and one in Brazil. This imbalance primarily reflects the distribution of the available evidence, rather than limitations in the databases searched or the search terms employed, as our review drew from three major international databases. Consequently, this geographic skew may limit the generalizability of findings and underscores the need for comparative research that engages diverse sociopolitical and cultural contexts, especially given the varying levels of legal protection and societal acceptance of sexual and gender minorities across countries.

A notable gap in the reviewed literature concerns the dating violence perpetrated in online or digital environments. Despite the widespread use of digital platforms for communication, socialization, and romantic interaction among adolescents—especially among SGMY, who often turn to online spaces for safer identity exploration and connection—only two studies in this review examined cyber or digital TDV. This is particularly concerning given the emerging evidence that LGBTQ+ youth may be disproportionately exposed to online harassment, manipulation, and coercive behaviors by dating partners. Future research should prioritize the inclusion of digital contexts when investigating TDV dynamics, with attention to how anonymity, surveillance, and threats of exposure intersect with minority stress and identity-related vulnerabilities.

Importantly, our review confirms that many of the limitations identified in earlier work, e.g., [10], remain unresolved in the more recent literature focused on adolescents. Despite over a decade of calls for methodological improvements—including the clearer assessment of gender identity, standardization of TDV measures, inclusion of intersecting identities, and use of robust longitudinal designs—few studies have addressed these concerns meaningfully. This persistence of gaps suggests a lack of substantive progress in the field, reinforcing the need for coordinated, equity-oriented research agendas that advance beyond prior critiques rather than reiterating them. Moreover, it is critical that future research prioritizes intersectional, longitudinal, and cross-cultural approaches. Only through such comprehensive frameworks can we fully capture the complexity of TDV among SGMY and develop equity-oriented, globally relevant strategies for prevention and intervention.

4.6. Implications for Practice, Policy, and Education

The findings of this review underscore the urgent need for comprehensive and inclusive responses to teen dating violence among SGMY. Prevention and intervention programs must explicitly address the full spectrum of SGMY identities and experiences, integrating components that focus on minority stress, trauma, emotional regulation, and relational health.

Educational settings are particularly critical in this regard. Schools must implement LGBTQ+ inclusive curricula that go beyond heteronormative models of relationships and that equip adolescents with the knowledge to identify and respond to early signs of abuse—including verbal, psychological, and relational forms of violence, which are often overlooked. Such education should begin early and be developmentally appropriate, helping adolescents to recognize harmful dynamics before they escalate into more severe forms of violence.

Creating affirming and safe school environments is equally vital. This involves training school personnel in LGBTQ+ competencies, establishing clear anti-discrimination policies, and ensuring the presence of supportive adults who can serve as trusted resources for SGMY. Efforts should also extend to community and healthcare settings, where inclusive practices and trauma-informed care can enhance protective factors such as social connectedness, belonging, and access to support, e.g., [78].

Finally, addressing TDV among SGMY requires systemic action. Structural drivers of vulnerability—such as homophobia, transphobia, and family rejection—must be confronted through targeted policies, inclusive service provision, and public health campaigns that promote equity and resilience. A coordinated, multi-level approach grounded in developmental science and social justice is essential for ensuring that all adolescents, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, can experience safe and healthy relationships.

5. Conclusions

This systematic review synthesized evidence from 25 empirical studies examining the risk factors associated with teen dating violence (TDV) among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY).

This systematic review identified multiple individual, relational, and structural risk factors for teen dating violence (TDV) among sexual and gender minority youth (SGMY). The findings reveal a consistent pattern of elevated vulnerability, with particular risks emerging at the intersection of sexual/gender identity and broader systems of inequality.

Rather than introducing entirely new gaps, this review highlights a troubling lack of progress in addressing well-documented limitations—such as inadequate subgroup analyses, the use of non-validated measures, and the absence of longitudinal studies. These persistent shortcomings hinder the field’s ability to build cumulative knowledge and develop targeted, evidence-based interventions.

Future research must shift from reiterating prior recommendations to implementing them. Prioritizing inclusive, methodologically rigorous, and developmentally sensitive studies is essential for advancing prevention efforts. Only through intersectional and systemic approaches can we ensure that all adolescents, including SGMY, are equipped to form healthy and safe relationships. In conclusion, reducing TDV among SGMY requires more than a recognition of elevated risk—it demands a sustained commitment to equity, inclusion, and structural change. Only through coordinated efforts across research, education, and policy can we ensure that all adolescents, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, have access to healthy, respectful, and supportive relationships, as a fundamental right [79].