RESUMO
Students with disabilities are one student group with elevated risk of sexual violence. Although they would benefit from streamlined access to campus support, little is known about their patterns of campus service use. This qualitative analysis includes data from semi-structured interviews with 51 students with disabilities who experienced sexual violence focused on service use across campus. The resultant conceptual model shows that greater accessibility is associated with positive experiences, and lower accessibility is associated with negative experiences. Students with disabilities who experienced or expected negative reactions (e.g., judgment) were less likely to use services and were less satisfied. Advocacy and support in connecting students with disability or sexual violence services was associated with positive experiences and increased accessibility. These findings highlight key facilitators and barriers to campus service use for students with disabilities with sexual violence histories and suggest key intervention points for increasing accessibility, reducing stigma, and improving student experiences with campus providers, staff, and faculty.
Assuntos
Pessoas com Deficiência , Delitos Sexuais , Docentes , Humanos , Estigma Social , EstudantesRESUMO
Purpose: College students with disabilities (SWDs) experience elevated rates of sexual violence and intimate partner violence compared with their non-disabled peers. While tailored interventions for these pressing health issues are needed, current research lacks investigation into how SWDs conceptualize relevant key concepts, such as consent and healthy relationships. Method: This descriptive qualitative study explored these concepts through semi-structured interviews with college SWDs (n=49), 18-24 years old, in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Results: The results culminated in six rich, descriptive themes addressing: 1) interpersonal and intrapersonal skills necessary for relationship health; 2) normalization of unhealthy treatment by a partner due to manipulation, denial, and love for the partner; 3) how dichotomous definitions of consent interfere with practical application in lived experiences; 4) how active consent can be both facilitated and hindered within the context of a romantic relationship; 5) perceptions that healthcare providers aim to elicit disclosures of abuse rather than initiate a discussion about relationship health; and 6) students' reticence to disclose abuse to healthcare providers due to mistrust and fear over loss of agency. Conclusions: These results contradict historic narratives that SWDs do not have the same sexual and relationship beliefs and experiences as other students and highlight the perspectives of this marginalized population. Implications for campus prevention programming and healthcare practices include incorporating intersections of disability and violence, discussing the nuances of consent and substance use, and creating conversations about relationship health that are transparent, non-judgmental, and include a broad range of types of abuse.