Mindfulness and posttraumatic growth in childhood sexual abuse and psychological maltreatment survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many studies focusing on childhood sexual abuse (CSA) may have neglected the consequences related to experiencing other types of childhood maltreatment, such as psychological maltreatment. Moreover, the literature has focused more on negative consequences related to CSA, hence potentially leaving out more adaptive and resilient trajectories. This qualitative study aimed to explore childhood psychological maltreatment and CSA, mindfulness, sexuality, and intimate relationships in adult survivors. The interview data from 19 individuals who experienced CSA and psychological maltreatment were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Four conceptual categories developed: (a) an unsafe family environment that hindered the development of positive experiences and relationships; (b) impaired mindfulness dispositions: the reliving of trauma, the avoidance of suffering, and feeling engulfed; (c) impaired intimacy: instability, codependence, emotional distance, and self-silencing; and (d) mindfulness dispositions and posttraumatic growth (PTG) in participants’ intimate lives. These findings highlight that mindfulness, sexuality, and intimate relationships are often poor among survivors of psychological maltreatment and CSA. Yet opportunities to develop mindfulness dispositions appear to enhance PTG in survivors’ intimate relationships, significantly contributing to survivors’ healing processes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".