Cited by 81Child Abuse and TraumaPosttraumatic Stress Disorder ResearchMilitary, Security, and Education Studies

Child sexual abuse, disclosure and PTSD: A systematic and critical review

McTavish, Jill R., Sverdlichenko, Irina, MacMillan, Harriet L., Wekerle, Christine·2019·Child Abuse & Neglect

Abstract

Background Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a prevalent exposure with potentially serious, negative health consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its symptomatology.Objective To conduct a systematic and critical review in order to investigate the relationship between CSA disclosure patterns and PTSD.Participants and setting Studies included clinical, college and community-based samples of adults' and children's experiences of CSA.Methods We conducted systematic searches in five databases (Medline, Embase, PyscINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Sociological Abstracts) from database inception to October 17, 2017 using index terms and keywords for CSA, disclosure, and PTSD. We included any English-language, primary studies involving children or adults with experiences of CSA that used quantitative research designs to explore the relationship between disclosure and PTSD. We used systematic critical review methodology in order to investigate the relationship between disclosure and PTSD symptoms and disorders. We also investigated factors that explained the relationship between disclosure and PTSD, such as individual, exposure or environmental factors.Results Twenty-two articles reporting 20 studies were included in this review. Studies assessing the relationship between CSA and PTSD tended to account for personal (e.g., gender) and CSA exposure variables (e.g., severity of CSA) only. While authors generally used validated measures to assess for PTSD symptoms and disorders, they tended to use author-generated or unvalidated measures to assess for disclosure process variables.Conclusion The relationship between factors that affect disclosure, and responses to disclosure, are not well theorized in quantitative literature. Study findings suggest important avenues for future research, such as the need to assess disclosure longitudinally.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.04.006

Cites

80 of 80 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McTavish, J. R., Sverdlichenko, I., MacMillan, H. L., & Wekerle, C.
Affiliations
McMaster University (CA)
Corresponding author
McTavish, Jill R.
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
92
Pages
196-208
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2939867362
Cited by
81
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
9.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Military, Security, and Education Studies
Keywords
child sexual abuse, disclosure, post-traumatic stress disorder, posttraumatic stress symptoms, disclosure process, abuse severity, gender differences, trauma exposure
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Sexual, Female, Humans, Male, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Prevalence, Disclosure

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