Defying Distance: Practitioner Perspectives on the Impact of Telehealth on LGBTIQ + Family Violence Service Access in Regional Australia

Abstract Introduction LGBTIQ+ people experiencing family violence in regional areas of Australia have historically had few service options, with most support being offered face to face in metropolitan centres. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth has helped to transform both how people access health services and how health services are delivered. Through necessity, video-facilitated remote appointments have been adopted at unprecedented levels, accelerating change in health and community sectors that might have taken decades to achieve were it not for the COVID-19 health crisis. We use the term “family violence” to describe “any violent, threatening, coercive or controlling behaviour that occurs in current or past family, domestic or intimate relationships” (Victorian Government, 2024). Our usage is consistent with policy and practice usage in Victoria, Australia (Amos et al., 2023a). Our use of the term “regional” is drawn from the independent Regional Australia Institute’s definition of regional as “everything beyond the major capital cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide and Canberra” (Regional Australia Institute, 2024). In a study about Victoria, therefore, we use “regional” to refer to anything outside metropolitan Melbourne. This includes areas that might be referred to in other contexts as “rural.” We use “rural” when engaging with research that employs that term. Methods In this article, we explore practitioner perspectives on the rapid adoption of telehealth in relation to its impact on LGBTIQ+ people in regional Australia experiencing family violence, drawing on interviews with 14 practitioners working within an LGBTIQ+ health and wellbeing organisation. Results Our paper shows that practitioners observed telehealth making specialist LGBTIQ+ family violence services more accessible to clients in regional areas. Services and programs that previously had to be accessed in person in metropolitan centres were delivered online, creating engagement opportunities for LGBTIQ+ people in regional areas for whom distance had been a significant barrier. Conclusions Practitioners felt that telehealth benefited LGBTIQ+ people in regional areas, providing many with access to specialist LGBTIQ+ family violence services like never before, while also presenting significant and largely unresolved challenges around safety. Ensuring that telehealth is robust, effective, and available to LGBTIQ+ people experiencing family violence in regional areas as part of more inclusive hybrid service delivery should be a priority into the future. Policy Implications As state-mandated social-distancing measures are no longer in place—and telehealth has returned to being less of a priority for those providing services—it is important to further refine and articulate frameworks for telehealth to maximise its effectiveness for LGBTIQ+ people experiencing family violence in regional areas.