Cited by 18Sexual Assault and Victimization StudiesChild Abuse and TraumaMilitary, Security, and Education Studies

Sexual abuse prevention education in australian primary schools: A national survey of programs

Open access
Walsh, Kerryann, Berthelsen, Donna, Hand, Kirstine, Brandon, Leisa, Nicholson, Jan M.·2019·Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Abstract

In the 2017 final report of the Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, recommendations noted the importance of school-based prevention efforts to create child-safe communities. In this study, we report on a national evaluation of the nature and availability of child sexual abuse prevention programs delivered in Australian primary schools. A survey instrument, anchored in empirical evidence, was distributed to all providers of child sexual abuse prevention programs in Australian primary schools serving children aged 4 to 13 years. Respondents were program coordinators or facilitators who provided data on 35 school-based child sexual abuse prevention programs that reached 631,720 children (approximately 26% of the Australian primary school student population) in 1 year. On average, each program reached 18,049 children in a calendar year (ranging from 200 to 80,000 children). Median child age for program exposure was 8 years. However, program duration was poorly reported so it was difficult to establish what program dosage was received. Most programs (80%-94%) covered specific item content, “always or often,” for 13 important areas of content, including five of seven items that had the strongest evidence of effectiveness, derived from a recent Cochrane Review (e.g., distinguishing appropriate and inappropriate touching). Programs less frequently addressed such content as safety in using technology and perpetrator strategies (e.g., grooming). The findings provide important information about the scope and nature of child sexual abuse prevention programs, and baseline data against which future program advancements can be tracked.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0886260519869246

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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

Authors
Walsh, K., Berthelsen, D., Hand, K., Brandon, L., & Nicholson, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Queensland University of Technology (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Walsh, Kerryann
Venue
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
Published
2019-09-05
Volume
34
Issue
20
Pages
4328-4351
ISSN
  • 0886-2605 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-6518
OpenAlex
W2971995060
Cited by
18
References
8
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Interpersonal Violence (publishedVersion)
  • QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Australian Research Council (DP1093717)
  • queensland university of technology (2010-2012)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Child Abuse and Trauma
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Military, Security, and Education Studies
Keywords
child sexual abuse prevention, school-based prevention, elementary school, program evaluation, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, program content, program dosage, grooming, online safety, Australian schools

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