Experiences of Disclosure and Reactions of Close Ones from the Perspective of Child Sexual Abuse Survivors: A Qualitative Analysis of Gender Specificities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The disclosure of child sexual abuse (CSA) is a complex process that remains partially understood, despite its crucial role in survivors' recovery. Gender specific experiences of disclosure have been little investigated while this information is crucial to better tailor interventions for survivors. This qualitative study aims to 1) explore survivors' experiences in disclosing to close ones, and 2) contrast experiences of male and female survivors. Fifty-one CSA survivors (25 women and 26 men) aged 18 years or older were recruited via community services for survivors. Two main categories emerged from thematic content analysis: 1) experiences of disclosure hindering CSA recovery or 2) ones fostering CSA recovery. Men felt ignored when their close ones were focused on their own emotions of indifference, helplessness and guilt toward CSA. Men felt guilty when confronted with reactions of blame for their own inaction or disempowered when pressured to remain silent or to forgive. Women felt ignored when their close ones showed anger toward their perpetrator. Women felt guilty when they were held accountable for CSA events or disempowered when pressured to take legal actions. Women, but not men, reported feeling considered through caring and heart-to-heart discussions. Recommendations for awareness messages and practitioners are discussed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".