Exploration of mental health outcomes of community-based intervention programs for adult male survivors of childhood sexual abuse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of clinical treatment for male survivors of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) who deal with depression, anxiety, stress, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Secondary data was used in the study, and a one-group pretest-posttest design was employed to compare pretest (n = 346) with posttest (n = 91) scores. The analysis shows statistically significant improvements with respect to depression, anxiety, stress, and PTSD after treatment. There was no statistically significant difference between individual and mixed treatment (including group and individual counselling) regarding alleviating mental health symptoms. Despite a lack of statistical difference between treatments, the results confirm that interventions were equally effective in reducing negative mental health symptoms. The study contributes to the generation of evidence-based knowledge for treatment and its ability to reduce negative mental health symptoms for adult male survivors of CSA. It also informs practitioners of the utility of a male-specific treatment modality based on trauma-focused cognitive and behavioral therapies (TF-CBT) and the gender role strain paradigm (GRSP).Key Words: Adult Male Survivors, Childhood Sexual Abuse, Mental Health, Evaluation
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".