Barriers to reporting sexual harassment in healthcare settings: a literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Healthcare professionals are at risk of experiencing sexual harassment at work, which can have a negative impact on their health and wellbeing. This study aimed to explore the reasons why healthcare professionals may not report their experiences of sexual harassment, as documented in peer-reviewed literature. EBSCO, Scopus, JSTOR, Science Direct, Sage, Google Scholar, the Cochrane Library and DelphiS were searched to identify relevant articles published in English from Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, UK and USA. A concept mapping table was developed to assist with the search strategy and the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme Checklist was used to critique and synthesise the findings. A total of five articles met the inclusion criteria, although most focused on healthcare professionals in general and looked at wider harassment and violence, rather than sexual harassment alone. The main factors that influenced the reporting of harassment were the normalisation of inappropriate behaviour, fear of reprisal and lack of clarity around policies and procedures. Further research is needed into the factors influencing the reporting of sexual harassment specifically in order to develop standardised reporting procedures and training programmes to prevent these incidents, and handle them appropriately when they do occur.
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 | 0.015 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".