Campus Sexual Assault: A Qualitative Review and Meta-Synthesis of Students’ Experiences of Campus Prevention Initiatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sexual violence is a worldwide issue that impacts many individuals, often with serious and long-lasting effects. Students represent a high-risk group for sexual violence on campuses. As a result, various government initiatives have called for Universities and Colleges to develop policies and sexual violence prevention initiatives. However, much of the focus has been on the effect of the initiatives with less attention to students' experiences. Thus, the purpose of this qualitative systematic review with meta-synthesis was to critically appraise and synthesize the evidence (e.g., themes) regarding students' experiences with campus sexual assault prevention initiatives. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines were followed. Six databases were systematically searched, which yielded 2,090 papers. This resulted in 21 published papers meeting the inclusion criteria of a primary, English language, qualitative or mixed-methods study exploring students' experiences of campus sexual assault initiatives. Two researchers independently extracted data and completed quality appraisals. The meta-synthesis identified four synthesized findings: (1) dichotomous perceptions of sexual violence initiatives, (2) the need for enhanced awareness, (3) modality matters, and (4) intended and unintended outcomes. Overall, these findings suggest that students valued the attention to the issue of sexual violence; however, they identified concerns that warrant attention. This has important implications for program and policy development as having programs that meet students' needs may result in enhanced student engagement which may, in turn, lead to increased efficacy. Moreover, initiatives that may result in harm to survivors require careful consideration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".