CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Sex work and related issuesChild Abuse and TraumaSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

A global systematic scoping review of literature on the sexual exploitation of boys

Moss, Corinne, Smith, Savanah Jordan, Kim, Katherine, Hua, Nicholas, Noronha, Noella, Kavenagh, Mark, Wekerle, Christine·2023·Child Abuse & Neglect
DOI 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106244
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Sexual exploitation of children (SEC) is a widespread crime which impacts the child victim across developmental, health and well-being domains. As victims, boys have received much less clinical and research attention. While context-specific factors likely shape the SEC risk, under-recognized gender norms can deny boys' vulnerability. Professional failures to recognize and respond adequately to boys' sexual exploitation may prevent access to support.Objective This systematic scoping review updates and broadens a previous review of literature addressing prevalence, victim/offender/facilitator characteristics, control mechanisms, as well as the health correlates and outcomes regarding sexual exploitation of boys. This review included international peer-reviewed and gray literature from 38 countries in 14 languages.Participants and setting Studies from the years 2000 to 2022 that included samples of boys under age 18, or sex-disaggregated data for children under 18, were included. Case studies, systematic reviews, and those reporting on retrospective experiences by adults over 18 were excluded. A total of 254,744 boys were represented across 81 studies.Methods A systematic scoping review considered qualitative and quantitative peer-reviewed publications from eight, English-language databases. English and non-English non-peer reviewed publications ('gray literature') was identified by both ECPAT International's global network of member organizations and citation chaining.Results Overall, 81 peer-reviewed (n = 51) and gray literature (n = 30) documents from 38 countries were included. In total, 254,744 youth participated in peer-reviewed studies (N = 217,726) and gray literature (N = 37,018). General prevalence of sexual exploitation of boys was reported at up to 5 %, with higher rates noted in specifically vulnerable sub-populations (e.g., 10 %, trans youth; 26 %, street-connected youth). The literature indicates that sexual exploitation of boys is reported as occurring primarily between 12 and 18 years old. Multi-level factors are linked to SEC, including individual (e.g., disability status), relationship (e.g., child maltreatment, dating violence), community (e.g., community violence), and societal domains (e.g., discriminatory beliefs). SEC victimization is linked with youth mental and physical health concerns, particularly sexual health. Post-traumatic stress symptomatology or disorder was rarely evaluated. Evidence-based treatments were not available, which may be related to a lack of gender-based theoretical models for understanding SEC specifically.Conclusion The sexual exploitation of boys is a prevalent public health, child rights, and clinical issue. All young people experiencing sexual exploitation face sex- and gender-specific challenges, and this remains the case for boys with indications including family rejection, implicit community tolerance for abuse to service accessibility barriers. Actioning our duty to care for all children requires gender- and trauma-informed lenses. Ongoing surveillance of all forms of violence against children, with gender disaggregation, is essential for practice and policy advancement.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106244

Cites

103 of 103 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

4 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Moss, C., Smith, S. J., Kim, K., Hua, N., Noronha, N., Kavenagh, M., & Wekerle, C.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Corresponding author
Moss, Corinne
ORCID
Venue
Child Abuse & Neglect
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-08
Volume
142
Issue
Pt 2
Pages
106244
ISSN
0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106244
OpenAlex
W4378216783
Cited by
25
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Sex work and related issues
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
child sexual exploitation, prevalence, victim characteristics, offender characteristics, facilitators, gender norms, transgender youth, child abuse, dating violence, community violence, sexual health, post-traumatic stress, mental health, physical health, evidence-based treatment, child protection, child sexual abuse prevention
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Child, Child Abuse, Humans, Male, Retrospective Studies, Sexual Behavior, Violence, Crime Victims

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