4 - (SYM 84) Can “one Size Fits All” Still Be Inclusive? Developing and Piloting a Post-sexual-assault Intervention to Reduce Eurocentrism and Increase Intersectional Inclusivity

Background: Historically, maximizing cultural responsiveness in trauma-focused interventions has depended on either (1) the presence of a culturally-specific intervention (often adapted from an existing non-culturally-specific intervention) or (2) sufficient clinician training and skill when delivering a non-culturally-specific intervention. Reducing Eurocentrism and increasing intersectional inclusivity at the time of initial development of an intervention could be a promising complementary approach. Such an approach could increase an intervention’s broad relevance across identity groups. However, there is little guidance about strategies to accomplish this at the intervention development stage.

Methods: We developed CARE—a 2-session dyadic early intervention that teaches support skills to supporters of recent sexual assault survivors—to prevent survivor psychopathology, increase social support, and promote recovery. To draft this intervention, we sought feedback from an Inclusivity Advisory Board comprised of experts in culturally-responsive interventions. Then, we revised the intervention based on feedback sessions with 12 survivors and their supporters who had been recruited to maximize intersectional diversity. Finally, in our ongoing pilot trial (N = 26 dyads to date), we tracked in-session discussion of identity-related topics, in-session qualitative feedback, and survey-based feedback about satisfaction.

Results: Feedback during the development process identified the following changes to increase inclusivity: probing for culturally-relevant information, allowing for flexible responsiveness to culturally-specific needs, adding culturally-relevant content, and supporting participants in tailoring each skill to their needs and values. Results from the pilot trial have indicated that these strategies frequently elicit in-session disclosures of identity-relevant issues and participant-led tailoring of skills. Satisfaction with the intervention has been quite high across identity groups.

Conclusion: It is feasible to incorporate structural changes to a skills-based intervention that encourage open discussion of identity-relevant issues and increase the personal relevance of skills. This highlights the utility of considering intersectional inclusivity early in the intervention development process.