Interventions that Foster Healing Among Sexually Exploited Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual exploitation of children and adolescents is a pressing, yet largely under-recognized form of child abuse. The goals of this review were to identify interventions that have been implemented with sexually exploited children and adolescents and to better understand their effectiveness for fostering healing with this population. Our systematic search generated 4,358 publications of which 21 met our inclusion criteria. Based on their objectives and delivery, we organized the interventions into five categories: (a) focused health and/or social services, (b) intensive case management models, (c) psychoeducational therapy groups, (d) residential programs, and (e) other. Most programs were gender-specific, targeting girls and young women with just one being for boys and young men only. Studies reported on a range of outcomes including psychosocial outcomes, risky behaviors, trauma responses, mental health, protective factors, and public health outcomes. Despite differences in delivery, most of the interventions did, to some degree, appear to foster healing among sexually exploited children and adolescents. Findings from this review have implications for researchers, policy and program developers, and frontline practitioners who, through partnerships with one another, can advocate for the creation of evidence-informed, purpose-built, and thoughtfully delivered interventions.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it