Perspective advocates resilience-based pain management for LGBTQIA+ individuals, suggesting a critical shift in treatment approaches.
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and individuals with other related experiences or identities (LGBTQIA+) experience chronic pain and disability at twice the rate as their cisgender, endosex, and heterosexual counterparts. These disparities are shaped by intersecting social, structural, and historical factors, including minority stress, health care discrimination, and barriers to affirming care. While contextualized approaches to pain management have been recommended to address the unique lived experiences of LGBTQIA+ individuals, prevailing pain models largely remain grounded in deficit-oriented frameworks that emphasize vulnerability, maladaptive cognitions, and individual pathology. Such approaches risk obscuring the broader social determinants of health that shape pain experiences and may inadvertently reproduce dynamics of stigma and medical mistrust. This perspective argues for a conceptual shift toward an affirmative, resilience-based approach to chronic pain management for LGBTQIA+ individuals. Drawing on evidence from LGBTQIA+ affirming care, trauma-informed practice, and resilience-based approaches, this perspective proposes a framework that integrates recognition of social and structural inequities with strengths-based principles that emphasize adaptive coping, psychological flexibility, identity affirmation and community connection. It outlines how physical therapists are uniquely positioned to operationalize this approach by fostering psychological safety, supporting meaningful movement and values-based engagement, and addressing contextual barriers to care. By moving beyond vulnerability-focused models and centering resilience as a dynamic, contextually situated process, this perspective offers a pathway for physical therapists to promote equity, empowerment, and more effective pain care for LGBTQIA+ individuals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ross et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: