Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39241155›Full record

ReviewMilitary psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association2025

Still "Don't Ask" more than a decade later: The impact of research barriers for LGB+ military couples.

Christina Balderrama-Durbin, Jeffrey A Cigrang, Douglas K Snyder, Avantika Gupta, Amy M Smith Slep, Richard E Heyman, Aleja M Parsons, Jordan Simonson, Kristin M Lindahl, Leah Pound

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Christina Balderrama-DurbinDepartment of Psychology, Binghamton University (SUNY), Binghamton, New York.ORCID 0000-0001-9666-4220
Jeffrey A CigrangSchool of Professional Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0003-2802-5085
Douglas K SnyderDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.ORCID 0000-0002-3507-2843
Avantika GuptaSchool of Professional Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio.ORCID 0000-0001-7436-5043
Amy M Smith SlepFamily Translational Research Group, New York University, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-6321-1740
Richard E HeymanFamily Translational Research Group, New York University, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-5365-0037
Aleja M ParsonsFamily Translational Research Group, New York University, New York, New York.ORCID 0000-0002-7844-0458
Jordan SimonsonHeadquarters Air Force, A1Z - Integrated Resilience, Pentagon, Airlington, Virginia.ORCID 0009-0003-7735-7155
Kristin M LindahlDepartment of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.
Leah PoundHeadquarters Air Force, A1Z - Integrated Resilience, Pentagon, Airlington, Virginia.ORCID 0000-0003-1483-9168

Funding

U.S. Army Medical Research W81XWH1820027
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT) over a decade ago, military processes and policies continue to function as significant structural and institutional barriers to research aimed at optimizing resources for military couples and families with marginalized sexual identities. Such research is essential given the apparent mental health and related disparities among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and those with other marginalized sexual identities (LGB+) active-duty service members (SMs), as well as the absence of appropriately tailored resources to support these members of the military community. In this paper, we review the empirical literature on the experiences and psychological health of LGB+ military couples, revealing severe limitations in our understanding of these diverse military romantic partnerships. We illuminate process-related barriers to conducting this essential research through an illustrative case example. Our review concludes with specific recommendations for reform and advocacy distinguished by coordinated efforts inclusive of all five military branches, policymakers, military leaders, researchers, and LGB+ stakeholders.

Indexed as

Military PersonnelSexual and Gender MinoritiesFemaleHumansMaleMental HealthcouplesDADTLGBmilitarysexual orientation

Identifiers

PMID39241155
PMCPMC12413031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.