Identifying barriers and facilitators to reporting and disclosing sexual violence (SV) for undergraduate students in Canadian and American universities: a scoping review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Canadian and American undergraduate universities grapple with gender-based violence, notably sexual violence (SV), primarily affecting women in their initial four months of university. However, an estimated 90% of survivors/victims do not report assaults, exacerbating psychological trauma and impacting resource allocation and the implementation of effective prevention strategies. Survivors/victims' reluctance to report also denies them access to university accommodations and resources, impacting health and well-being. Immediate risks of SV include physical and emotional trauma, while long-term consequences encompass mental health conditions, educational setbacks, and economic losses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively review and synthesize literature on underreported SV in Canadian/American universities. Through assessment, we seek to understand the strengths and gaps in current knowledge. Collaborating with experts, we aim to co-create recommendations for revising colonialized policies and reporting procedures, potentially eliminating barriers and enhancing facilitators. Our primary question focuses on identifying SV reporting barriers and facilitators for Canadian/American undergraduate survivors/victims. Given that a significant number of students at Canadian and American universities identify as Indigenous, African Canadian/American, International, and 2SLBGTQIAA + and we would like to know if the barriers and facilitators to reporting SV differ for these students, we added several sub-questions exploring intersections of race, culture, and gender. Addressing these knowledge gaps will inform policymaking, guide policy revisions, and improve reporting pathways, ultimately enhancing student safety and fostering violence-free Canadian and American campuses. DESIGN: Databases inclusive of PubMED, CINHAL, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Web of Science as well as sources of grey literature were used to identify papers published between 2000 and 2024, from which we selected articles relevant to barriers and facilitators of reporting sexual violence in Canadian and American undergraduate universities. RESULTS: We will employ the PRISMA flow chart for the systematic search, selection, and inclusion of evidence. Each source's key characteristics will be summarized in the text, while detailed information will be organized in tables and appendixes. Specific data, aligned with our primary and sub-questions, will be charted, and a narrative synthesis will be formulated using the results table. CONCLUSIONS: The study's results will offer a comprehensive overview of obstacles and factors influencing the reporting of sexual violence, highlighting variations based on cultural and sexual identities. Addressing these knowledge gaps will provide data for shaping recommendations, refining policies, and enhancing accessible reporting avenues. Ultimately, this contributes to improving student safety and fostering violence-free campuses in Canada and the United States (US).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».