10941_Social Integration And The Mental Health Needs Of Lgbtq Asylum Seekers In North America

Yale University
EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale
Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library
School of Medicine
January 2019
Social Integration And The Mental Health Needs
Of Lgbtq Asylum Seekers In North America
Samara Danielle Fox
Follow this and additional works at: https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl
This Open Access Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Medicine at EliScholar – A Digital Platform for Scholarly
Publishing at Yale. It has been accepted for inclusion in Yale Medicine Thesis Digital Library by an authorized administrator of EliScholar – A Digital
Platform for Scholarly Publishing at Yale. For more information, please contact elischolar@yale.edu.
Recommended Citation
Fox, Samara Danielle, “Social Integration And The Mental Health Needs Of Lgbtq Asylum Seekers In North America” (2019). Yale
Medicine Thesis Digital Library. 3493.
https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/ymtdl/3493

Social Integration and the Mental Health Needs
of LGBTQ Asylum Seekers in North America

A Thesis Submitted to the
Yale University School of Medicine
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Medicine

by

Samara Fox

2019

Abstract

This study examined the mental health burden of LGBTQ asylum seekers and
associated psychosocial risk factors with a focus on barriers to social integration. This
study also characterized LGBTQ asylum seekers’ interest in interventions aimed at
alleviating mental distress and social isolation. Respondents (n = 308) completed an
online survey which included the Refugee Health Screener (RHS-15), the NIH Loneliness
scale, and an adapted scale of sexual identity disclosure. Most respondents (80.20%)
screened positive for mental distress. Loneliness (OR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.09, 1.19) and
LGBTQ identity disclosure (OR = 3.46, 95% CI = 1.01, 12.02) were associated with
screening positive for mental distress. Transgender identity (OR = 3.60, 95% CI = 1.02,
16.02) approached significance for a positive association with mental distress. Those
who had been granted asylum (OR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.169, 0.75) or had higher English
language proficiency (OR = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.12, 0.94) were less likely to screen
positive. Most of those who screened positive (70.45%) were interested in receiving
mental health counseling. Almost all participants wanted more LGBTQ friends (83.1%),
wanted to mentor an LGBTQ newcomer (83.8%), and were interested in joining an
LGBTQ community center (68.2%). LGBTQ asylum seekers are highly likely to
experience mental distress and are interested in participating in mental health
treatment and LGBTQ community building. Loneliness, outness, indeterminate
immigration status, and low English proficiency are unique risk factors associated with
mental distress.

Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
1
BACKGROUND
1
PERSECUTION EXPERIENCES
2
MENTAL HEALTH
3
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
4
OUTNESS
6
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
8
STUDY OBJECTIVES
8
METHODS
9
PARTICIPANTS
9
SURVEY DEVELOPMENT
10
MEASURES
10
DATA ANALYSIS
17
RESULTS
18
PARTICIPANT CHARACTERISTICS
18
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
20
PREDICTORS OF MENTAL DISTRESS
22
DISCUSSION
23
MENTAL HEALTH
24
SOCIAL INTEGRATION
25
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
28
INTERVENTION INTEREST
30
IMPLICATIONS
30
LIMITATIONS
31
CONCLUSION
33

REFERENCES

35

1
Introduction
Background

In the 1990s in North America, a series of federal court cases and statutory
reforms transformed an individual’s sexual orientation from being a basis for
immigration exclusion to being a basis for immigration relief under international human
rights law (1)(2). Decisions from immigration courts extending similar relief on the basis
of gender identity soon followed (3). Since that time, LGBTQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, Queer)1 immigrants have claimed asylum on the basis of sexual
orientation or gender identity every year, coming from over 80 countries around the
world where it is a crime or generally unsafe to be LGBTQ (4). The United States and
Canadian Governments do not publish records on the number of individuals who claim
or receive asylum on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. However, one
inquiry to the Canadian government revealed that 1,351 asylum claims on the basis of
sexual orientation had been made in 2004 (5). The Williams Institute has estimated that
2.4% of documented immigrants and 2.7% of undocumented immigrants to the United
States identify as LGBTQ (6). Applying an even more conservative estimate of 2% to the
225,750 individuals who filed for asylum in the U.S. in 2016 (7) would suggest that at
least 4,515 of them were LGBTQ. In addition to a paucity of population data, there are

1 The acronym LGBTQ is frequently used in Western academic and activist circles as an umbrella term for all sexual and
gender minorities. It does not reflect the full diversity of identities articulated across cultures, such as hijra people in
Southeast Asia, or two-spirit people in various Native American tribes. For the sake of brevity, the term will be used to
refer to all immigrants claiming asylum on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in the common law court
systems of the United States and Canada. The term LGB will be used to refer to sexual minorities only, as opposed to
gender minorities including transgender and other gender non-conforming individuals.
2
few published quantitative or qualitative studies examining LGBTQ immigrants in
general, and asylum seekers in particular.
Persecution Experiences
All asylum seekers have experienced or anticipated persecution in their home
countries, but LGBTQ asylum seekers frequently experience distinct patterns of
persecution. A program for survivors of torture in New York City compared LGB asylum
seekers with asylum seekers of the same country of origin and sex who had been
persecuted for other reasons and found that sexual minority asylum seekers were more
likely to have experienced sexual violence, persecution during childhood, and
persecution from a family member (8). Similarly, a retrospective chart review of LGB
patients at a program for survivors of torture in Boston found that 74% had been
persecuted by their own families and 50% had experienced rape or sexual assault (9). A
mixed-methods study of men who have sex with men and transgender women in
Mongolia found that almost 15% of respondents had experienced sexual assault within
the past three years (10). Another study of Mexican transgender asylum seekers found
that most interviewees had experienced physical assaults, particularly from family and
community members, and that many had experienced sexual assault (11). Common
forms of violence against LGBTQ people documented by the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees include state-sanctioned beatings, imprisonment and police
torture, honor killings, and “corrective rape,” which is rape with the intent to change
the sexual orientation or gender presentation of the victim (12). Once they have arrived
3
in the United States or Canada, LGBTQ asylum seekers, and particularly transgender
asylum seekers (11), can continue to experience persecution related to their sexual
orientation or gender identity, often in the form of harassment and discrimination when
seeking employment and housing (11)(13)(14).
Mental Health
LGBTQ asylum seekers’ particular persecution experiences can have a significant
impact on their mental health. The matched comparison study mentioned above found
that LGB asylees were more likely than other asylum seekers to endorse suicidal
ideation (8). Other research has found extremely high rates of major depression (76%),
PTSD (70%), and generalized anxiety (28%) in LGB asylum seekers (9). Many post-
migration stressors and demographic factors likely contribute to the mental distress of
LGBTQ asylum seekers, as we will explore below. Given that recent arrivals in this
population are generally uninsured (9) and that asylum seekers overall have significant
difficulty accessing mental health services (15), LGBTQ asylum seekers with mental
health concerns also face substantial barriers to accessing dependable and appropriate
mental health services (16).
Social Integration
It is well established within psychological literature that social connectedness is
important for both mental and physical health (17)(18)(19), and that strong social
networks have a protective effect for those who have experienced significant trauma
(20)(21), including refugees (22)(23) and LGBTQ individuals in the general population
4
(24)(25). For recent immigrants, strong social networks are also often the primary, or
only, means of securing housing, employment, and guidance in navigating the
complexities of day-to-day life in a new country (16). However, LGBTQ immigrants may
have a particularly difficult time forming a robust and supportive social network once
they have arrived in the United States or Canada because of the real or perceived risk of
persecution at the hands of both immigrant communities and non-immigrants (11)(14).
Furthermore, cultural and linguistic barriers may prevent asylum seekers from forming
supportive relationships with broader LGBTQ communities in North America (2)(14). At
least one recent study has identified social isolation as a significant concern for
transgender asylum seekers (11) and it has been observed in several qualitative studies
in Canada that support groups and organizations created specifically for sexual and
gender minority refugees help to address social isolation and promote self-acceptance
(2)(14).
Existing psychological literature on social isolation differentiates between
objective and subjective social isolation. Objective measures of social isolation include
the size of a person’s social network and its strength in terms of frequency and duration
of contact. More subjective measures include a respondent’s rating of emotional
closeness for each member of the network. The most subjective measure of social
isolation is loneliness, which has been defined in the literature as a “discrepancy
between desired and achieved patterns of social interaction” (26) that results in
emotional distress. Two recent systematic reviews have suggested that social networks
that are objectively large and contain “high-quality” relationships in terms of both
5
frequency of contact and perceived levels of emotional support protect against
depression (27)(28). However, other studies have found that the subjective feeling of
loneliness is both an independent, and more significant, risk factor for depression when
compared to the size of one’s social network or frequency of contacts (20)(30)(31)(32).
Research has also suggested that the subjective feeling of loneliness has an impact on
physical health, as well as mental health, independent of social network size and
frequency of contact (29)(33).
Previous research on LGB American youth and adults has specifically shown that
sexual minorities tend to experience greater loneliness than their heterosexual
counterparts (34), and that lower levels of loneliness (35) and higher satisfaction with
social support (36) are correlated with better mental health. While quantitative
assessments of loneliness in LGBTQ asylum seekers have yet to be conducted, a
confluence of factors prevent this population from forming social connections with
members of both immigrant and LGBTQ communities. Thus, they are likely to
experience higher levels of both subjective and objective social isolation than the
average American or Canadian, along with higher levels of mental health morbidity.
Connection to LGBTQ community has also been associated with better mental health
outcomes in sexual and gender minorities. A recent study of transgender and gender non-
conforming individuals (37) and an earlier study of LGB individuals (38) found an association
between LGBTQ community connectedness and psychological wellbeing. A similar study found
that respondents with a connection to the transgender community had lower mental distress
and symptomology (39). Asylum seeker’s connection to LGBTQ community has not been
6
studied quantitatively, although qualitative studies have pointed to clear psychological
benefits. (2)(14).
Outness
LGBTQ asylum seekers are likely less open about their sexual orientation and/or
gender identity than LGBTQ Americans or Canadians, although the outness of this
population has never been studied. The relationship between identity disclosure and
mental health in LGBTQ asylum seekers is also unclear. In U.S. populations, studies of
the relationship between mental health and sexual orientation concealment have had
variable results. When it comes to gender identity concealment and mental health, only
qualitative studies have been conducted, and these are complicated by the need to
differentiate between concealment of one’s assigned sex and gender history in an
individual who “passes” (a concealment which can be seen as affirming one’s gender
identity) and concealment of one’s true gender identity in an individual who is still
perceived to be the sex they were assigned at birth (a concealment which denies one’s
gender identity) (40).
Some research has found a correlation between identity concealment and
increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, and proposed a causal relationship
based on the stress that concealment imposes in terms of maintaining separate life
spheres, social isolation, and ongoing feelings of shame, guilt and internalized stigma
(41)(42)(43)(44). However, several other studies have suggested that those who conceal
their sexual orientation have fewer mental health problems, possibly because they are
7
able to avoid the stigma, discrimination, and resultant stress that come with increased
visibility (45)(46)(47)(48). A 2015 population-based study of over 1,200 LGB adults in the
U.S. looked a how the relationship between identity disclosure and mental health varies
between cis-men and cis-women. The research found that sexual minority men who
were out were more likely to be depressed than those who had remained in the closet,
while the converse was true for sexual minority women (49). Researchers attributed this
difference to the greater stigma experienced by visible sexual minority men compared
to women.
Overall, it is clear that the impact of outness on mental health depends upon the
circumstances (voluntary or involuntary) and consequences (support, acceptance, and
connection or rejection, discrimination, and isolation) of being out (50)(51)(52). It is also
clear that these circumstances and consequences vary greatly between different sub-
populations of LGBTQ people (42)(41). While no quantitative research has examined
the relationship between outness and mental health in immigrant populations,
qualitative ethnographic research has suggested that the ability to voluntarily conceal
one’s sexual identity may have particular mental health benefits in LGB immigrant
populations (53).
Demographic Characteristics
There are several demographic characteristics that may influence the mental
health outcomes of LGBTQ asylum seekers. Research in U.S. LGBTQ populations has
found that younger age and lower education level are both associated with greater
8
mental health symptomology (37). Studies have also found an increased mental health
morbidity in transgender people (54), cis-women compared to cis-men (55), and
bisexual women (56). Research on non-LGBTQ immigrant populations has also found
that lower English language fluency (57) and awaiting an immigration status
determination (58) are associated with worse mental health outcomes.
Study Objectives
The present study aims to be the first to describe, in a survey, the mental
health burden and experiences of social integration of LGBTQ asylum seekers in
North America using a valid mental health screener and a battery of social
determinants (e.g., perceived social support, identity concealment, social
acceptance of one’s LGBTQ identity, barriers to mental health care) of mental
health across a large, diverse sample of LGBTQ asylum seekers. We also aim to
examine associations between these social determinants and mental health.
With the goal of spurring intervention development among this population, we
finally aim to characterize LGBTQ asylum seekers’ interest in interventions aimed
at alleviating mental distress and social isolation. Our findings will inform future
efforts aimed at improving the mental health of this vulnerable and underserved
population.

9
Methods
Participants
The survey’s target population included individuals over the age of 16
identifying as LGBTQ currently living in the United States or Canada. The target
population must have applied, or been planning to apply, for immigration status as an
asylum seeker on the basis of their sexual orientation and/or gender identity by filing a
form I-589 with United States Customs and Immigration Services or a Basis of Claim
form with the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. The survey was available for
participants to complete between March 5, 2018 and September 24, 2018.
Potential survey participants were contacted by partnering with non-profit
organizations and individual service providers in the United States and Canada who
work with LGBTQ asylum seekers. Partner organizations and individual providers
distributed the online survey to clients via email. Participants who completed the survey
received a $20 gift certificate. Partner organizations included Immigration Equality,
Greater Boston Legal Services, the Yale Center for Asylum Medicine, the Russian-
Speaking American LGBT Association (RUSA LGBT), the Translatina Coalition, LGBT
Freedom and Asylum Network, Rainbow Railroad, and the LGBT Asylum Taskforce. The
assistance of individual legal services and mental health providers in distributing surveys
was also solicited online via the Society of Refugee Healthcare Providers Listserv and in-
person at the 2017 North American Refugee Health Conference.
10
Survey Development
A draft survey was written in English and then translated and back-translated
using professional interpreters in Spanish, French, Arabic, and Russian. Some elements
of the survey included validated psychometric instruments that were already available in
those languages and were therefore included in the final translated survey in unaltered
form. This includes the Refugee Health Screener (RHS-15) (59) which was available in
Spanish, French, Russian, and Arabic (60) and the PROMIS and NIH Toolbox scores for
loneliness and emotional support available in Spanish (61)(62).
The draft survey was piloted with asylum seekers who provided feedback on
readability of the Spanish, French, Russian, and Arabic versions of the survey. Feedback
on readability was also solicited from legal service providers at Immigration Equality.
Once readability adjustments to the survey were made, the survey was distributed using
Qualtrics software (63).
Measures
Demographic Characteristics
Participants were asked their birth country, current country and state/province of
residence, years spent in current country, age, gender identity (cis-male, cis-female,
transgender male, transgender female, genderfluid/genderqueer, or other), sexual
orientation (lesbian, bisexual, gay, heterosexual, or other), asylum status
(“application not submitted,” “application submitted,” “application submitted and
work permit received,” “asylum status granted, ” or “asylum status denied”), spoken
11
English language proficiency (excellent, very good, good, fair, or beginner) (64)(65),
educational attainment (no formal education, primary school, secondary school, or post-
secondary school), employment status, and school enrollment.
Mental Distress
To our knowledge, no screening tool for mental distress has been validated for
online administration in a population of asylum seekers. However, the Refugee Health
Screener (59) was specifically developed to quickly and efficiently screen for the need
for referral to a mental health provider in refugee populations and was chosen for this
study to assess the mental health burden of LGBTQ asylum seekers. During pilot
testing, several asylum seekers from East Africa, Latin America, Europe, and the Middle
East completed the RHS-15 online with no difficulty.
The RHS-15 was first validated in 2013 in a population of over 200 refugees from
Asia and the Middle East, where it was found to correlate with diagnostic proxy
instruments for depression, anxiety, and PTSD with a sensitivity of 81-95% and
specificity of 86-89% (59). Since that time, the RHS-15 has been translated into twelve
languages (66) and is used at over 160 healthcare sites across the globe (67). The
instrument has been validated for use in a variety of refugee populations in clinical and
public health settings (68)(69)(70).
The first 13 items on the RHS-15 are Likert scale type questions asking
respondents to characterize the extent to which they are experiencing particular
symptoms of distress, with responses ranging from zero (“not at all”) to four
(“extremely”). These questions have an accompanying visual aid – a series of jars
12
ranging from empty to full – to help illustrate the concept of increasing degrees of
symptom experience in a more culturally universal manner. Question 14 asks about a
respondent’s ability to cope with life stressors, with responses ranging from zero (“able
to cope with anything”) to 4 (“unable to cope with anything”). A respondent will screen
positive if their total score for the first 14 items is 12 or greater. The final question is an
illustrated emotional distress “thermometer” with responses ranging from zero (“no
distress – things are good”) to ten (“extreme distress – I feel as bad as I ever have”). A
score of 5 or greater on the distress thermometer will also indicate a positive screening
regardless of responses to the first 14 questions.
Social Isolation
For our study, we chose a 4-item version of the recently developed NIH Toolbox
Loneliness measure, with each item offering five Likert scale type response options
(61). This measure is part of a suite of brief self-report emotional and social health scales
validated for use in large survey studies in several languages (71)(72)(73)(74). The NIH
Toolbox Loneliness measure was validated in direct reference to the 20-item UCLA
Loneliness Scale (R-UCLA), showing a strong correlation with the original (72).
We used a second social support measure, the 4-item PROMIS Short Form v2.0
Emotional Support scale (75), which was developed using similar methods and for the
same applications as the measures in the NIH Toolbox (76)(75). The scale was designed
to capture the “appraisal support” component of the Interpersonal Support Evaluation
List (77)(78). The scale provides a positive measure of support and includes Likert scale
13
type questions focused on ascertaining the degree to which respondents have access
to individuals with whom they can experience validation and sympathy.
One of the greatest advantages of both the NIH Loneliness and PROMIS
Emotional Support measures is that they are scaled so that they can be directly
compared to U.S. adult population averages. The NIH Toolbox measures use a U.S.
national reference sample of 4,859 English and Spanish speakers (79) and the PROMIS
uses a national reference sample drawn from the 2000 General U.S. census. (80). Raw
scores from both of these measures are converted to scores scaled to a distribution with
a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10 (81).
Outness
To our knowledge, no existing scales of sexual orientation or gender identity
disclosure have been validated for use in immigrant LGBTQ populations. For our study,
we modified a scale that has been validated in U.S. LGB populations, the Outness
Inventory Scale (OI) (82)(83). The OI assesses the degree to which respondents’ LGBTQ
identity is known or talked about within different social spheres of their life. The scale
asks participants to rate on a 7-point Likert scale how open they are about their sexual
orientation in different areas of their social life: family, coworkers/school peers, religious
community, and non-LGBTQ friends.
We modified the OI to include both sexual orientation and gender identity
(“sexual orientation status” was changed to “LGBTQ identity”). While a Likert scale
framework provides more granular detail regarding Outness, we wanted to reduce the
complexity of response options give our target population. Therefore, we created
14
three response options for each social domain: “no such group of people in my life, ”
“know about your LGBTQ identity” or “do not know about your LGBTQ identity.”
Given that many LGBTQ asylum seekers are often forced to live with strangers or family
friends, we also added an item: “people I live with in a house or apartment.” Also,
given that less than 50% of respondents ultimately endorsed membership in a religious
community in the United States or Canada, we did not use that item in our overall
score tabulations. We calculated Outness scores as the average of all responses, with
“no such group of people in my life” coded as “NA”. For descriptive purposes, for
each social domain where respondents indicated they were out, we also asked if their
identity was “accepted” or “not accepted” by members of that social domain.
We performed exploratory factor analysis to evaluate whether our Outness scale
represents a unitary factor. Many statistical tests are available for determining the
optimal number of factors and there is no consensus on which methods to use;
therefore, we use a method agreement procedure that employs 9 different methods
and chooses the number with the highest consensus (84). The method agreement
procedure found that the optimal number of factors underlying the Outness scale is 1,
with 8 out of 9 (88.89%) methods identifying one factor (VSS Complexity 1,Optimal
Coordinates, Acceleration Factor, Parallel Analysis, Kaiser Criterion, Velicer MAP, BIC,
and Sample Size Adjusted BIC) and the remaining method identifying three factors
(VSS Complexity 2). Thus, we proceed under the assumption that the Outness scale is
unitary.

15
LGBTQ Community and Social Support
To better characterize our respondents’ connections with LGBTQ community
and their sources of social support post-migration, we asked about respondents’
LGBTQ friendships and number of LGBTQ friends and sources of social support.
Specifically, we asked 1) if respondents had LGBTQ friends in their current country of
residence, 2) if they had LGBTQ friends from their country or culture in their current
country of residence, 3) if they wanted more LGBTQ friends or LGBTQ friends from
their country or culture, and 4) the number of LGBTQ friends they had. We also asked
respondents to pick 1-3 primary sources of social support (options included family,
significant other/partner, immigrant community, LGBTQ resource center, religious
organization, work/school, LGBTQ friends from online, LGBTQ friends from bars or
clubs, and housemates).
Intervention Interest
To assess respondent’s interest in different types of interventions aimed at
improving the mental and social health of LGBTQ asylum seekers, we asked participants
to indicate their interest in joining a private Facebook group for LGBTQ immigrants,
meeting other LQBTQ people from their country or culture through an anonymous
website, joining a local LGBTQ community center, mentoring an LGBTQ immigrant who
has just arrived in the United States or Canada, and seeing a mental health counselor.
We also asked respondents if cost had ever been a barrier to accessing mental health
services since their arrival in their host country.

16
Data Analysis
In order to control for survey response quality, we established three criteria for
survey inclusion. A survey must have been completed up to at least the first five
question sections, the survey response time needed to be at least nine minutes, and the
survey needed to contain no more than one inconsistent, exclusionary, or illogical
answer. Unacceptable answers included listing “country of origin” as the U.S., Canada
or another country from which LGBTQ people do not seek asylum, listing age as less
than 16 or greater than 100, listing both heterosexual for sexual orientation and cis-
gendered for gender (respondent does not identify as LGBTQ), listing a country other
than the U.S. or Canada as current country of residence, listing number of years living in
U.S. or Canada as greater than stated age, a response of “yes” to the question “Do you
have LGBTQ friends in the U.S. or Canada?” while also listing zero for the specific
number of LGBTQ friends, and vice versa. Following these criteria, 308 out of 476
collected surveys were included in the study (65%). We discarded 77 surveys that did
not meet completeness criteria, 10 surveys that contained 2 or more unacceptable
answer choices, and 81 surveys that had a response time of less than 9 minutes.
We used logistic regression to investigate which factors predict screening
positive on the RHS-15. We considered 11 predictors that we expected to influence
RHS-15 results, including 5 continuous predictors (Outness Score, Emotional Support
Score, Loneliness Score, age, and log years lived in the U.S./Canada) and 6 binary
17
predictors (post-secondary education, good/excellent English proficiency, granted
asylum, transgender, cis-female, and bisexual).
We present results from two modeling approaches. First, we fit 11 separate
single-variable logistic regression models for each predictor. Second, we fit a multiple
logistic regression model including all 11 predictors.
Results
Participant Characteristics
Survey participants came from 48 different countries and were currently living in
29 different states or provinces. A plurality of participants were aged 30-39, cis-gender
male and gay, originally from Russia, living in New York State, employed, and had a
post-secondary education and above average fluency in English. See Table 1 for a
summary of participant characteristics.
Table 1
Participant Characteristics (n = 308)

n
%

Survey Language
English
Russian
Spanish
French
Arabic

160
122
18
6
2

51.9%
39.6%
5.8%
1.9%
0.6%

Region of Origin
Europe/Central Asia
Caribbean
Latin America
Sub-Saharan Africa
Middle East/North Africa
Asia

155
35
34
25
8
6

58.9%
13.3%
12.9%
9.5%
2.6%
2.3%
18

Country of Origin (Top 5)
Russia
Jamaica
Uganda
Nigeria
Belarus

113
27
14
13
13

36.7%
8.8%
4.5%
4.2%
4.2%

Current Country
United States
Canada

293
15

95.1%
4.9%

Current State/Province (Top 5)
New York
California
Florida
Massachusetts
Ontario

130
46
37
26
15

42.2%
14.9%
12%
8.4%
4.9%

Gender Identity
Cis-Male
Cis-Female
Genderqueer/Genderfluid/Other
Transgender Female
Transgender Male

215
56
23
11
3

69.8%
18.2%
7.5%
3.6%
1%

Sexual Orientation
Gay
Lesbian
Bisexual
Heterosexual
Other

205
47
40
10
6

66.6%
15.3%
13%
3.2%
1.9%

Age Range
<21 21-29 30-39 40-49 50+ 4 121 154 26 3 13% 39.3% 50% 8.4% 9.4% Years in US or Canada < 1 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 12+ 42 91 92 29 11 15 2 26 13.6% 29.5% 29.9% 9.4% 3.6% 4.9% 0.6% 8.4% Stage of Asylum Process Application not submitted Application submitted Work permit received Application granted Application denied 40 20 138 107 3 13% 6.5% 44.8% 34.7% 1% 19 Spoken English Proficiency Excellent Very Good Good Fair Beginner 84 92 82 40 10 27.3% 29.9% 26.6% 13% 3.2% Education No Formal Primary Secondary Post-Secondary 1 3 56 248 0.3% 1% 18.2% 80.5% Employed Yes No 223 85 72.4% 27.6% In School Yes No 70 238 22.7% 77.3% Descriptive Statistics In our sample, 80.20% of participants screened positive for mental distress and a need for referral to mental health services. Of those who screened positive, 70.45% indicated they would be “interested in seeing a mental health counselor to help with feelings or symptoms they are having.” Of those who screened negative, 44.26% also expressed interested in seeing a mental health counselor. Over a third (38.60%) of our survey participants stated they had not been able to access mental healthcare since arriving in the Unites States or Canada because of cost. Across respondents, the mean scaled loneliness score was 63.19 (SD = 10.86) and the mean scaled emotional support score was 46.71 (SD = 9.42). This indicates disproportionately low social and emotional support compared to US population norms. 20 In fact, the reference U.S. population norms for both loneliness and emotional support were M = 50 (SD = 10). The mean outness score was 0.73 (SD = 0.30; range = 0-1). On average, participants were out in the majority of their social domains, although most reported concealing their identity in at least one domain. Participants were most likely to be out to, as well as accepted by, their housemates, co-workers and classmates, and non- LGBTQ friends. Participants were least likely to be out to, and accepted by, their biological family and religious organizations. Table 2 summarizes participants’ outness and acceptance. Almost all participants reported having LGBTQ friends in the U.S. or Canada, and most had LGBTQ friends from their own country or culture. The most commonly cited source of social support was a significant other, followed by LGBTQ friends made via the Internet. A majority of respondents expressed interest in interventions that involved in-person interaction and mental health services. A majority were also interested in joining a private Facebook group for LGBTQ asylum seekers and almost 50% were interested in joining an anonymous website to connect with other LGBTQ asylum seekers. Table 2 summarizes participants’ intervention interest. 21 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics (n = 308) Outness and Acceptance n % Biological Family Not out Out, not accepted Out, accepted Not applicable 94 127 74 13 30.5% 41.2% 24% 4.2% Work/School Peers Not out Out, not accepted Out, accepted Not applicable 101 30 159 18 32.8% 9.7% 51.6% 5.8% Religious Community Not out Out, not accepted Out, accepted Not applicable 84 21 39 164 27.3% 6.8% 12.7% 53.2% Housemates Not out Out, not accepted Out, accepted Not applicable 64 24 194 28 20.1% 7.8% 63% 9.1% LGBTQ Community n % Have LGBTQ Friends Yes No 281 27 91.2% 8.8% Have LGBTQ Friends from Home Country or Culture Yes No 238 70 77.3% 22.7% Want more LBGTQ Friends Yes No 256 52 83.1% 16.9% Want More LBGTQ Friends from Home Country or Culture Yes No 216 89 70.8% 29.2% Number of LGBTQ Friends 0 1-2 3-5 6-10 11+ 17 65 99 65 62 5.5% 21.1% 32.1% 21.1% 20.1%