Missing the Mark: A Scoping Review of Sexual Violence Prevention Interventions and Lgbtqia+ Inclusion In the United States

Background and Purpose:
LGBTQIA+ individuals experience disproportionately high rates of sexual violence, yet most prevention efforts are grounded in heteronormative frameworks that do not reflect their lived experiences. While there have been growing calls to “queer” sexual violence prevention, less is known about how this has actually been done in practice. This scoping review examines how sexual violence prevention interventions in the United States have incorporated queer-informed approaches, with attention to how they are designed, implemented, and evaluated. Drawing on the Social Ecological Model (SEM), this study also considers the extent to which interventions move beyond individual-level change to address broader structural factors.

Methods:
Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched using keywords related to LGBTQIA+ populations, sexual violence, and prevention. Studies were included if they evaluated a sexual violence prevention intervention, included LGBTQIA+ populations, and incorporated queer-informed elements. A total of 1,382 studies were screened, with 6 meeting inclusion criteria. Most studies were excluded because they did not evaluate an intervention, did not include LGBTQIA+ populations, or only mentioned inclusion without meaningfully integrating queer-informed content. Data were extracted on intervention design, implementation, and evaluation strategies.

Results:
Design: Across studies, queering prevention was most often reflected through representational inclusion (e.g., same-sex couples in scenarios), rather than deeper changes to how prevention was conceptualized. While all studies drew on the SEM, most focused on individual- and relationship-level outcomes, such as knowledge, attitudes, and bystander behaviors. Very few addressed community or institutional factors. This is a key gap, as sexual violence is shaped by broader campus climates, policies, and norms, which are not captured when interventions stay at lower levels of the SEM.

Implementation: Interventions were typically delivered through existing campus programming, such as courses, workshops, or peer education. However, there was limited evidence of meaningful LGBTQIA+ student involvement in the development or delivery of these programs, raising questions about how well they reflect the needs and experiences of the communities they are intended to serve.

Evaluation: Most studies used pre-experimental or quasi-experimental designs, such as pre-post assessments without comparison groups. Interventions were associated with improvements in outcomes like consent knowledge, bystander efficacy, and reductions in rape myth acceptance. However, few studies assessed behavioral outcomes, and even fewer examined differences across LGBTQIA+ subgroups. As a result, it remains unclear whether these interventions reduce sexual violence or for whom they are most effective.

Conclusions and Implications:
These findings suggest that current efforts to queer sexual violence prevention often stop at inclusion, rather than addressing the structural conditions that shape risk and response. Moving forward, prevention efforts should center LGBTQIA+ students in the design and implementation process, expand beyond individual-level change to address campus climate and institutional practices, and use more rigorous and inclusive evaluation strategies. For social work, this means advancing prevention approaches that are not only inclusive, but also responsive to power, context, and the broader systems that shape students’ experiences.