Cited by 26Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesPatient Satisfaction in HealthcareHealthcare Quality and Management

Measuring experience and outcomes in patients reporting sexual violence who attend a healthcare setting: a systematic review

Open access
Caswell, Rachel J, Ross, Jonathan DC, Lorimer, Karen·2019·Sexually Transmitted Infections

Abstract

Background: Obtaining perspectives from those seeking healthcare after sexual violence on care and how it is delivered is important. Objectives: To systematically identify any existing patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) for patients attending healthcare services after sexual violence. Also, to identify key themes regarded by patients as priorities for delivering a high-quality service. Design: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration RD42016050297). Data sources: Eight electronic bibliographic databases from inception to March 2017. ‘Grey’ literature also searched. Search words included patient view, patient experience, PROM/PREM, sexual violence, rape. Review methods: Studies of any design, with participants of any gender and aged 13 years or older were included; studies only assessing the views of service providers were excluded. Appraisal tools assessed for study quality. Healthcare outcome data were assessed across the quantitative studies and key experiences across qualitative papers; Framework Analysis was used to synthesise the qualitative studies. Results: From 4153 identified papers, 20 fulfilled criteria for inclusion: 10 qualitative, 8 quantitative and 2 mixed methods. No validated measure of assessing patient experience or outcome was identified. The synthesis of qualitative studies led to the assignment of two overarching themes around the importance of patient-focused and trauma-focused communication, and of care which enhances patient empowerment. A paucity of research within certain patient groups who experience sexual violence, in particular men and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) patients was noted. Limitations: A broad definition of ‘healthcare setting’ incorporated a wide variety of venues limiting the applicability of findings in specific settings. Conclusion: A validated and standardised approach to assess patient experience and outcome in healthcare settings after sexual violence is needed. Themes identified should be incorporated into PROM or PREM development. The review also suggests the need for a change in approach towards those who attend for healthcare after sexual violence to ensure patient autonomy.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/sextrans-2018-053920

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The initial healthcare response during the aftermath of SA can have profound impacts on the survivor.

    “The initial healthcare response during the aftermath of SA can have profound impacts on the survivor (Campbell et al., 2001, 2005; Caswell et al., 2019; Kirkner et al., 2021; Maier, 2008).”

    From “Having One Person Tell Me I Didn’t Do the Wrong Thing”: The Impact of Support on the Post-Sexual Assault Exam Experience (2024) · cites this paper as Caswell et al., 2019

    The review’s synthesis (section “1 Finished”; page not supplied) emphasizes the importance of trauma-focused communication and care that enhances patient empowerment after sexual violence. This supports the importance of healthcare responses, but the available passage does not specifically establish profound impacts from the initial response in the immediate aftermath. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caswell, R. J., Ross, J. D., & Lorimer, K.
Affiliations
  • University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
Corresponding author
Caswell, Rachel J
Venue
Sexually Transmitted Infections
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2019-06-19
Volume
95
Issue
6
Pages
419-427
ISSN
  • 0007-134X (ISSN-L)
  • 1368-4973
  • 1472-3263
OpenAlex
W2952549905
Cited by
26
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2
FWCI
0.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Sexually Transmitted Infections (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient Satisfaction in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
Keywords
sexual violence, rape, patient experience, patient-reported outcome measures, patient-reported experience measures, patient empowerment, patient autonomy, men who have sex with men, LGBTQ+ patients
MeSH terms
Empowerment, Adolescent, Adult, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patients, Sex Offenses, Wounds and Injuries, Qualitative Research, Young Adult

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