Poster Awards

Background Minority stress frameworks explain how structural stigma and proximal/distal stressors contribute to mental health inequities for LGBTQA+ people, underscoring the need for psychological care that is explicitly inclusive and non pathologising. Within psychology training, supervision is a primary mechanism for translating theory and curricular into clinical practice and professional identity, yet Australian supervision guidance and training pathways provide limited explicit direction on LGBTQA+ inclusive supervisory competencies. This creates an evidence to implementation gap: inclusive supervision may be expected in principle, but is inconsistently operationalised in routine supervisory practice.

Objectives To examine LGBTQA+ inclusive supervision in Australia by: (1) characterising trainee experiences of inclusivity in supervision, including differences by trainee LGBTQA+ identification; and (2) identifying Board approved supervisors' perspectives on inclusive supervision, including perceived competencies, barriers, and areas for improvement.

Methods or approach Study 1: Convergent mixed-methods survey of Australian psychology trainees (N=127) using standardised measures (SE-SC; LGBT-DOCSS) plus bespoke items, with quantitative and qualitative findings integrated at interpretation. Study 2: Semi-structured interviews with Board approved psychology supervisors (N=22), analysed using thematic analysis.

Key results or insights Study 1: Trainees rated supervisors less competent in LGBTQA+ relevant supervision than in general supervision (M=4.21 vs 5.72; Δ=1.59, 95% CI [1.32, 1.86], p<.001). Twenty three percent reported no inclusive supervision, and up to 37% indicated that core domains (e.g., formulation, skills feedback) were missing in inclusive supervision contexts. LGBTQA+ trainees were more likely to experience supervision as identity salient (OR≈4.11) and reported minority stressors within the supervisory relationship. Study 2: Supervisor interviews converged on four themes: (1) relational/psychological safety; (2) explicit attention to power/privilege and microaggressions; (3) skills based guidance beyond generic "be inclusive" advice; and (4) system level resourcing (e.g., mandated and accessible training; lived experience input).

Implications (including intended audience takeaways, learning outcomes, modalities, contributions) For supervisors, educators, service leaders, and community partners, these findings identify actionable targets for strengthening inclusive supervision within routine training systems (e.g., explicit contracting expectations and structured skills coaching in case formulation and feedback). Presentation takeaways include a concise set of evidence-informed supervision practice recommendations mapped to supervisor competencies and a clear translation pathway into supervisor training/CPD. To support engagement in a 10–15 minute format, the talk will use a brief composite vignette and demonstrate draft framework tools (e.g., a minority stress-informed co-formulation prompt; reflexivity template), showing how the priorities identified in Studies 1 and 2 can be operationalised in routine supervision. This work provides the empirical foundation for subsequent co-development and evaluation of an LGBTQA+ Inclusive Supervision Framework, informing research (measurable competency targets), policy/training standards (explicit expectations for inclusive supervision), and practice (repeatable supervision routines).

Keywords: LGBTQA+; clinical supervision; psychology training; minority stress; inclusive practice.

In recent years, there have been calls for have greater involvement of those with lived experience in mental health research and knowledge translation. Engagement of those with lived experience has been associated with positive outcomes for researchers, participants, and the research itself, including skill development, improved researcher understanding, participant empowerment, improved recovery, improved ethics and research methods, stronger dissemination, and increased accountability and transparency. Involvement of those with lived experience ensures that the research aligns with the priorities of these individuals and enhances the integrity of the work. This is particularly important when the research focuses on minoritized groups, given the historical and ongoing exploitative and extractive practices that have been used on these communities. This poster will outline a proposed process for creating a student advisory committee that can support the interpretation and dissemination of a current research project on the knowledge, attitudes, and help-seeking experiences of LGB+ students with a history of engaging in nonsuicidal self-injury (NSSI). Nonsuicidal self-injury, which refers to the deliberate damage to one's own bodily tissue without suicidal intent, has been found to be more prevalent among queer folks than their straight counterparts. Thus, the research project examined 101 LGB+ postsecondary students with a history of NSSI and a matched sample of 101 straight students who completed an international mixed-methods survey of students' NSSI knowledge, perception, and help-seeking experiences. Reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative responses was used to identify two main themes. However, throughout the process of this work, ongoing conversations occurred about the framing of the findings. It has been considered that the findings risk fragilizing or pathologizing queer students or underemphasizing the concern around NSSI among queer folks. Thus, the use of a student advisory committee appears prudent to ensure that queer voices are centred in this work. The poster will outline a proposed inclusion criteria for this advisory committee, as well as proposed recruitment, engagement, and compensation strategies. It will also outline potential challenges as well as proposed solutions. This poster will represent an important part of planning to make this research more relevant and impactful for queer youth.