The influence of intersectionality on the counseling experiences of women survivors of child sexual abuse from minoritized racial and ethnic groups.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child sexual abuse (CSA) poses pervasive challenges to the well-being of children and youth worldwide, with profound and sometimes lifelong consequences. Counseling is one of the most recommended treatments for CSA survivors. However, there is a paucity of research on the counseling experiences of CSA survivors from minoritized racial and ethnic groups. This qualitative study filled an important research gap by exploring the counseling experiences of 10 cisgender women survivors of CSA residing in Canada who identified with a minoritized racial and/or ethnic group. This study was guided by intersectionality theory and employed an interpretative phenomenological analysis design. Participants completed semistructured interviews (lasting an average of 90 min) that directly explored their experiences with counseling and how an intersectionality lens might help us further understand these experiences. Analysis of interview transcripts produced three Group Experiential Themes: (1) shared social identities between survivors and counselors facilitated connection through shared struggles, (2) racism and White privilege had disparate impacts in counseling for survivors, and (3) counselor cultural competence and humility were perceived as priorities. The findings demonstrated how the social location of CSA survivors, and particularly the nexus of race, ethnicity, and gender and the concomitant systems of oppression, influenced their counseling experiences. Clinical implications underscore the critical role of counseling psychologists in addressing systemic inequities by fostering clinical practices that are informed by intersectionality and the voices of CSA survivors from marginalized groups. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".