Cited by 226Child Abuse and TraumaMilitary, Security, and Education StudiesSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Reporting possible sexual abuse: A qualitative study on children's perspectives and the context for disclosure

Jensen, Tine K., Gulbrandsen, Wenke, Mossige, Svein, Reichelt, Sissel, Tjersland, Odd Arne·2005·Child Abuse & Neglect

Abstract

Objective The present study investigated the context in which children were able to report their child sexual abuse experiences and the children's views as to what made it difficult to talk about abuse and what helped them in the disclosing process. The aim was to study disclosures as they were occurring in their natural settings. Method Data were obtained from therapeutic sessions and follow-up interviews from 20 families with 22 children. These children had said something that made their caregivers concerned about ongoing child sexual abuse. Qualitative analysis was conducted to capture the children's and caregiver's perspectives of the disclosure process. Results The children felt it was difficult to find situations containing enough privacy and prompts that they could share their experiences. They also were sensitive to others reactions, and whether their disclosures would be misinterpreted. When the children did disclose they did it in situations where the theme of child sexual abuse was in some form addressed or activated. The results indicate that disclosure is a fundamentally dialogical process that becomes less difficult if the children perceive that there is an opportunity to talk, and a purpose for speaking, and a connection has been established to what they are talking about. Conclusions It is difficult for children to initiate a conversation about something secret, confusing and distressful, and where there are few conversational routines in a family for talking…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.07.004

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dialogical contexts about CSA for children and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may facilitate disclosures.

    “To elaborate, dialogical contexts about CSA for children and youth can provide opportunities for discussion that may facilitate disclosures (Jensen et al., 2005).”
  • Family members and friends (peers) of the child victim can act as key supports to creating an open relational context and fostering positive responses.

    “Further, family members and friends (peers) of the child victim can act as key supports to creating an open relational context and fostering positive responses (Jensen et al., 2005; Priebe & Svedin, 2008; Schönbucher et al., 2012; Ungar et al., 2009b).”
  • In Jensen et al. (2005), the children felt it was difficult to find situations containing enough privacy and prompts that they could share their experiences.

    “The children felt it was difficult to find situations containing enough privacy and prompts that they could share their experiences.”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, and Tjersland (2005)

  • In Jensen et al. (2005), several of the children perceived negative consequences as major factors contributing to delaying disclosure, and they were primarily concerned about negative effects for the mother.

    “Several of the children perceived negative consequences as major factors contributing to delaying disclosure. They were primarily concerned about negative effects for the mother.”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, and Tjersland (2005)

  • In Jensen et al. (2005), 17 told their mothers first, 3 first told a friend, 1 told their father, and 1 their uncle.

    “17 told their mothers first, 3 first told a friend, 1 told their father, and 1 their uncle.”

    From Facilitators and Barriers to Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) Disclosures: A Research Update (2000–2016) (2019) · cites this paper as Jensen, Gulbrandsen, Mossige, Reichelt, and Tjersland (2005)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 59 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jensen, T. K., Gulbrandsen, W., Mossige, S., Reichelt, S., & Tjersland, O. A.
Affiliations
University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Jensen, Tine K.
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-12
Volume
29
Issue
12
Pages
1395-1413
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1979601886
Cited by
224
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Military, Security, and Education Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
child sexual abuse, disclosure, children's perspectives, privacy, caregiver reactions, family conversation, dialogic process, fear of consequences, treatment sessions
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Child Abuse, Sexual, Child, Preschool, Confidentiality, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Truth Disclosure, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review