This paper explores the lived experiences of LGBTQ migrants participating in a civil society group in Sweden during the migration process and their reflections on the future. Eleven migrants who self-identified as LGBTQ (seven male/gay, one female/lesbian, one female/bi-sexual, and two transgender/gay persons) from three local support groups for LGBTQ migrants agreed to be interviewed. Participants came from Guinea, Iraq, Kurdistan, North Macedonia, Nigeria, Nicaragua, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, Syria, Uganda and Ukraine. Interpretative-phenomenological analysis resulted in three themes: Past: from daily stress to the fear of being killed; Present: safety, belonging and resources to support the transition to a new life; and Future: making a positive difference or being afraid of what’s ahead. Participants’ health-related journeys and reflections about the future were complex in terms of favourable and unfavourable lived experiences, which become resources and risks for personal development. Study findings offers an enhanced awareness of the complex landscape of, and interaction between, vulnerability and potentiality. Based on the findings, we suggest the adoption of a health promoting approach focusing on the LGBTQ migrants’ strengths and personal resources.

Purpose: Migrants are a vulnerable group concerning health and integration. Civil society organizations are deemed important for the integration and health of migrants and have been encouraged to help. This study explored health and acculturation, as expressed in research into health-related integration interventions for migrant groups provided by civil society organizations. Methods: Databases, journal websites and reference lists were searched in an integrative review. Thirteen articles were found and analysed using concepts of health strategies/perspectives and of acculturation with regard to general and health culture. Results: Studies were divided between two primary spectrums: 1) assimilation-integration and 2) integration-separation spectrum. Spectrum 1 interventions tend to promote assimilation into the present host culture and into a Western view of health. They are mostly driven by representatives of the host culture. Spectrum 2 interventions are characterized by a greater openness concerning the home-culture understandings of health, alongside an appreciation of the home culture in general. They are mostly migrant-driven. Conclusions: The different acculturating approaches in migrant and native-driven civil society organizations call for an awareness of their guiding health and acculturation assumptions and their applied perspectives and strategies. This awareness is considered crucial in order to achieve desired health and acculturation outcomes.