Women survivors of child sexual abuse. How can health professionals promote healing?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore how health professionals can practise in ways sensitive to adult women survivors of child sexual abuse. DESIGN: Qualitative semistructured in-depth interviews. SETTING: Small and midsize cities in Ontario and Saskatchewan. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-seven women survivors of childhood sexual abuse. METHODS: Respondents were asked about their experiences with physical therapists and other health professionals and asked how practice could be sensitive to their needs as survivors. A grounded-theory approach was used. After independent analyses, researchers achieved consensus on the main themes. Findings were checked with participants, other survivors, and mental health professionals. MAIN FINDINGS: A crucial theme was the need to feel safe when consulting any health professional. Participants described specific ways for clinicians to facilitate the feeling of safety. Disclosure of abuse history was another key theme; analysis revealed no one "right way" to inquire about it. CONCLUSION: Women survivors of child sexual abuse want safe, accepting environments and sensitive, informed health professionals with whom to work in partnership on all their health concerns.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".