Interventions that Address Institutional Child Maltreatment: An Evidence and Gap Map

Abstract

Purpose

This evidence and gap map collates evidence reporting on the effectiveness of interventions aimed to prevent, disclose, respond to, or treat child maltreatment occurring in institutional settings.

Methods

A comprehensive and systematic literature search identified primary studies and systematic reviews meeting the review’s eligibility criteria. Literature screening, data extraction and critical appraisals were undertaken independently by multiple reviewers. Data extracted and reported from the included studies included information about the institutional setting, target population, type of maltreatment, intervention type and outcomes.

Results

Seventy-three studies were identified, including 11 systematic reviews and 62 primary studies. Overall, the methodological quality of the studies was low to moderate. Most evaluated curriculum-based interventions delivered in educational settings, primarily aimed at preventing sexual abuse. Fewer studies examined other institutional settings or intervention types.

Conclusions

This review highlights a need for high-quality studies evaluating a more diverse range of interventions across more varied institutional contexts.

Keywords

child maltreatment systematic review child abuse intervention sexual abuse evidence gap map

Child maltreatment is a widespread phenomenon affecting millions of children, adults and communities around the globe. Child maltreatment includes sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. It is a major social issue that has a negative impact on the physical, mental, spiritual, educational and interpersonal wellbeing of those experiencing and surviving it – both in the short-term and in the form of long-term consequences that reduce the quality of life into adulthood (Fang & Corso, 2007; Fang, Brown, Florence, & Mercy, 2012; Felitti et al., 1998; Jaffee et al., 2018; Lueger-Schuster et al., 2018; Maniglio, 2009; Moore et al., 2015; Teicher & Samson, 2016). In recent years, child maltreatment that occurs in institutional settings has received high public and policy recognition, and there is increasing interest in targeting this form of maltreatment.

Determining the prevalence of child maltreatment is considered difficult due to inconsistencies in measurement and suspected under-reporting (Finkelhor et al., 2014), resulting in considerable variability among estimates. Even so, estimates of the overall prevalence of child maltreatment are alarmingly high, and these may give some indication of the extent of this issue. A synthesis of existing meta-analyses from across the globe estimated overall prevalence at 127/1000 for sexual abuse, 226/1000 for physical abuse, 363/1000 for emotional abuse, 163/1000 for child neglect and 184/1000 for emotional neglect (Stoltenborgh et al., 2015). Prevalence rates are sensitive to a number of factors. There are both geographical and gender differences. For example, the Global Status report published by the World Health Organisation [WHO] (2014) reported the prevalence of child physical abuse in Swaziland to be 22%, whereas in countries including Kenya, Tanzania and Zimbabwe prevalence ranged between 53% and 76% with higher rates of abuse experienced by boys than girls. Rates can vary depending on whether incidences of maltreatment are self-reported or based on informants (Greger, Myhre, Lydersen, & Jozefiak, 2015; Moody et al., 2018), and can also vary with the identity of the perpetrator/s. The nature of the acts (how widely or narrowly different subtypes of maltreatment are defined and operationalised in studies) or how many items are used to measure prevalence can also impact on rate estimates. While there is some variability across estimates, it is clear that the occurrence of child maltreatment is unacceptably high. The overall economic cost of child maltreatment is also high, with average lifetime costs in the US upward of $200,000 per child, resulting in billions in cost burden from new cases each year (Fang et al., 2012; Letourneau et al., 2018). In short, child maltreatment is harmful, highly prevalent and costly.

Even less is known about the prevalence of child maltreatment that occurs in institutional contexts, such as schools, out-of-home care, youth/juvenile detention, sport clubs, recreational settings, religious organisations or other comparable child and youth serving organisations in which children live or spend time. Institutional child maltreatment encompasses any kind of maltreatment that occurs in institutional settings. In these settings, child maltreatment can encompass adults abusing children, children abusing other children or institutions enabling child maltreatment. Children may be more or less at risk, for reasons ranging from a lack of proper safeguarding in institutions (e.g. failing to respond to disclosures) (Australian Government, 2017; Lemaigre, Taylor, & Gittoes, 2017; Wurtele, 2012) to individual characteristics (e.g. age, developmental or other disabilities) (Devries et al., 2018; Sullivan et al., 1992). Institutional child maltreatment as a field of empirical research is at an early stage (Blakemore, Hebert, Arney, & Parkinson, 2017; Proeve, Malvaso, & Delfabbro, 2016; Timmerman & Schreuder, 2014). It is not common for studies to differentiate between maltreatment occurring in institutional settings versus other maltreatment settings, and disentangling the impact of institutional maltreatment versus maltreatment that takes place in other contexts has not been routine. The empirical research to date has focussed primarily on sexual abuse within especially religious and out-of-home care institutions, whereas other types of maltreatment and settings have been less examined (Proeve et al., 2016). Recent studies conducted in Germany (Allroggen, Ohlert, Rau, & Fegert, 2018) and Norway (Greger et al., 2015) confirm that children placed in institutional care are at significantly higher risk of experiencing maltreatment, but less is known about maltreatment taking place in areas such as sports and exercise settings (Bjørnseth & Szabo, 2018). Regardless, child maltreatment taking place in these settings affects the lives of both victims, their families and their communities – at times for generations.

Child maltreatment occurring in institutional settings has received substantial attention in recent years, both at the policy level, among practitioners and service agencies working with children in different capacities and roles, and also as part of the public discourse. The shift in attention and prioritisation of child maltreatment as a key concern of society is reflected in a broad range of official inquiries and associated reports conducted in recent years in especially high-income countries (Australian Government, 2017; German Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2020; Pennsylvania Attorney General, 2018; United Kingdom Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, 2019). These inquiries have led to a prioritisation of child maltreatment within institutional settings, as both a specific and serious issue among policymakers, practitioners and service agencies working with children (Blakemore et al., 2017; Proeve et al., 2016). The inquiries have led to the production of multiple research reports examining the specific characteristics and consequences of institutional child maltreatment (Blakemore et al., 2017), how it can be prevented (Pitts, 2015; South et al., 2014, 2015), victims supported (Shlonsky, Albers, & Paterson, 2017), perpetrators and institutions held accountable and suitable responses implemented and maintained over time (Albers & Mildon, 2016; Parenting Research Centre, 2015). The problem has now rightly gained much wider recognition, being under the purview of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation, and gaining attention from parliaments, legislators, institutional governance and leadership, as well as the corporate and philanthropic sectors.

Evidence about the effectiveness of interventions aimed at preventing, disclosing, responding to or treating institutional child maltreatment is spread across multiple sources, and generally exists in the form of academic or grey literature. For institutions that wish to improve their practices and services in this area, it can be difficult and time consuming to find, access and interpret existing evidence. Therefore, there is still considerable confusion among sector stakeholders about what evidence exists for interventions developed to address institutional child maltreatment.

Evidence synthesis is a powerful tool that can bring together, integrate and interpret diverse knowledge sources using methods that are comprehensive, transparent and replicable (Littell & Shlonsky, 2010; Straus, Tetroe, & Graham, 2013). Evidence and gap maps (EGMs) are ‘evidence collections’ (Snilstveit, Vojtkova, Bhavsar, & Gaarder, 2013, p. 3) that provide a visual overview of the availability of evidence for a particular sector – in this case, interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment. They belong to a group of evidence synthesis products that aim to ‘configure information’ (Littell, 2018, p. 10). They do this by mapping out existing and ongoing systematic reviews and effectiveness studies, and by providing a graphical display of areas with strong, weak or non-existent evidence on the effect of interventions or initiatives. Evidence and gap maps therefore help to consolidate what evidence exists and what evidence does not currently exist about the effectiveness of interventions in a given area.

This EGM aims to provide a ‘go to’ knowledge base for stakeholders wanting to access high-level evidence on interventions addressing child maltreatment within institutions or organisations. To our knowledge, there are three existing EGMs related to issues of child maltreatment (Kornør et al., 2017; Pundir et al., 2019; Saran, Albright, Adona, & White, 2018). However, none have a specific focus on maltreatment that occurs in institutional settings. This EGM addresses this gap, making it an important resource for a wide range of stakeholders operating in child and youth serving organisations, such as kindergartens, schools, charities, churches, sports clubs, scouting associations, out-of-home care providers and the many other organisations that associate with children. Given the scale of interest in this issue, it is also expected to be an important resource more broadly.

Objectives

The objectives of this EGM were twofold:

1. To provide a structured and accessible collection of existing evidence from finalised and ongoing overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews and effectiveness studies of interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment – for those who work to fund, develop, implement and evaluate interventions aimed at ensuring children’s safety in institutional settings.

2. To identify gaps in the available evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment – thereby helping to inform the research agendas of funders and other organisations.

Method

Protocol and Study Publication

The protocol for this EGM was prospectively registered (Albers et al., 2019; https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1039) and the final research report was published with Campbell Systematic Reviews (Finch et al., 2021; https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1139) following methods for producing a Campbell EGM (White et al., 2020). These documents should be referred to for additional information about this study, including methodology and results, and changes from the protocol.

Evidence and Gap Map framework

Evidence and gap maps include a visual representation of the evidence, usually presented in a tabular format that is predetermined prior to undertaking literature searches. This EGM has been vertically structured into interventions aimed at addressing institutional child maltreatment prevention, disclosure, institutional responses and treatment. The EGM’s horizontal structure has been formed by outcome domains that relate to institutional safeguarding practices, maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence, children’s health and wellbeing, parent/caregiver behaviour, knowledge and attitudes and adult perpetrators of child maltreatment or child/youth offenders.

Eligibility Criteria

Studies that met the following eligibility criteria were included in the EGM.

Institutional settings

Institutional settings were defined as any public or private body, agency, association, club, institution, organisation or other entity or group of entities of any kind (whether incorporated or unincorporated), that also provides, or has at any time provided, activities, facilities, programs or services of any kind that provide the means through which adults have contact with children, including through their families (adapted from Australian Government, 2017). This included but was not limited to settings in education, health, residential care, detention, sports and recreation and religion. All geographic locations were included, and covered low-, middle- and high-income countries.

Target population

The key target population were children who were aged under 18 years, and living in or engaging in activities in institutional settings. However, although children were the key target group, study participants could also be adults. This EGM also included evidence on interventions that targeted perpetrators of institutional child maltreatment, as well as interventions aimed at improving the professional practice of staff and organisational standards of child and youth serving organisations. Target populations therefore included child victims, adult perpetrators, child/youth offenders and adult participants of eligible interventions.

Child maltreatment

Any type of maltreatment that may occur in an institutional setting, including sexual and physical violence/abuse, neglect and emotional abuse. This may encompass: adults abusing children; children abusing other children; or institutions enabling child maltreatment.

Interventions

Any intervention that aimed to prevent, support the disclosure of, respond to or treat the consequences of child maltreatment within institutional settings (see Table 1). These interventions could be targeted at the primary, secondary or tertiary level, with a focus on victims, perpetrators or institutions.

Table 1.

The Four Intervention Categories Within Scope of This EGM, With Examples.

Intervention	Target	Examples
Prevention	Victim	• Universal/primary interventions (e.g. educational interventions used in school settings and maternal-child health screening) • Indicated/tertiary interventions (e.g. advocacy and social supports)
	Perpetrator	• Universal/primary interventions (e.g. traditional or social media campaigns) • Targeted/secondary therapeutic interventions (e.g. CBT group therapy and education interventions) • Indicated/tertiary interventions (e.g. criminal justice and pre-employment screening/criminal background checks)
	Institution	• Legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow (e.g. response framework) • Particular institutions aimed at enhancing safeguarding practices of other institutions and outcomes in institutional settings (e.g. Child Advocacy Centres) • Organisational guidelines and/or practices • Staff education or training programs/initiatives
Disclosure	Victim	• Universal/primary interventions (e.g. traditional or social media campaigns and abuse helplines) • Targeted/secondary therapeutic interventions (e.g. play therapy)
	Perpetrator	• Universal/primary interventions (e.g. traditional or social media campaigns) • Legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow (e.g. mandatory reporting)
	Institution	• Legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow (e.g. response framework) • Particular institutions aimed at enhancing safeguarding practices of other institutions and outcomes in institutional settings (e.g. Child Advocacy Centres) • Organisational guidelines and/or practices (e.g. guidelines for reporting abuse) • Staff education or training programs/initiatives
Response	Victim	• Indicated/tertiary interventions (e.g. Legal avenues for criminal redress, advocacy and social supports)
	Perpetrator	• Indicated/tertiary interventions (e.g. criminal justice, arrest and removal of credentials, imprisonment)
	Institution	• Legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow • Organisational guidelines and/or practices (e.g. response framework, perpetrator accountability) • Particular institutions aimed at enhancing safeguarding practices of other institutions and outcomes in institutional settings (e.g. Child Advocacy Centres) • Staff education or training programs/initiatives
Treatment	Victim	• Targeted/secondary therapeutic interventions (e.g. trauma-focussed interventions)
	Perpetrator	• Indicated/tertiary interventions (e.g. criminal justice, arrest, removal of credentials and imprisonment)
	Institution	• Legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow • Organisational guidelines and/or practices (e.g. response framework and perpetrator accountability)

Outcomes

Studies were included where they evaluated and reported outcomes that could be grouped under the following six outcome categories within the scope of the EGM framework: institutional safeguarding practice; disclosure; child maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence (child safety), child wellbeing, adult perpetrator; child or youth offender; and parent/caregiver outcomes. Each of these broad outcome groupings were further broken down into subcategories (see Table 2). Studies that reported adverse outcomes that were explicitly evaluated were also included in the EGM.

Table 2.

The Six Outcome Categories Included in the EGM.

Outcome Category	Subcategory	Examples
Institutional safeguarding practice	Culture	• Leadership behaviour (e.g. role modelling of safeguarding behaviour) • Staff perceptions or views associated with safeguarding practices or risk awareness/minimisation
	Operations	• Outcomes related to staff recruitment policy/practice • Outcomes related to the implementation of child safeguarding policies and practices • Outcomes related to adult institutional caregiver competencies, including: – Knowledge and skills relating to institutional policies and practices required to safeguard children – Knowledge about child maltreatment and its impact on children – Knowledge about risk factors for child maltreatment, observation and interview skills related to identifying child maltreatment – Ability to handle child maltreatment disclosure including listening, supporting, documenting and actioning a response – Competencies associated with supporting and working with children who have been maltreatment
	Environment	• Outcomes associated with the design of, or modifications to, the institution’s physical environment
Child maltreatment disclosure	Disclosure rates	• The disclosure of maltreatment through the victim, caregivers, institutional staff or others involved in the child’s life
Child maltreatment occurrence or reoccurrence (child safety)	Maltreatment type (i.e. physical, sexual, emotional abuse, neglect)	• The occurrence or reoccurrence of child maltreatment within the institutional setting, for study participants – measured through, for example, self-reports, informant-reports
Child health and wellbeing	Knowledge/awareness	• Knowledge about child maltreatment and potential responses to offending behaviour • Risk-aware/risk-targeting behaviour
	Physical health	• Normative standards for growth and development • Gross motor and fine motor skills • Overall health • Body mass index • Risk-avoidance behaviour related to health
	Mental health	• Self-control, emotional management and expression • Internalising and externalising behaviours • Trauma symptoms • Self-esteem • Emotional intelligence • Self-efficacy • Motivation • Prosocial behaviour • Positive outlook • Coping
	Socioemotional functioning	• Social competencies and skills • Attachment and caregiver relationships • Adaptive behaviour • Social connections and relationships
	Cognitive functioning	• Language development • Pre-academic skills (e.g. literacy/numeracy) • Approaches to learning • Problem-solving skills • Academic achievement • School engagement/school attachment
Adult perpetrator/child or youth offender	Desistance	• The degree of cessation of the maltreating behaviour
	Recidivism	• The occurrence of relapse into maltreating behaviour
	Maltreatment behaviours	• Harmful coercive behaviours • Problem sexual behaviour (children under 10) • Harmful sexual behaviour (children aged from 10 up to 18) • Sexually offending behaviour (children aged between 10 and 18 years receiving treatment through a juvenile justice intervention)
Parent/caregiver	Behaviour/knowledge/attitudes	• Parental normative beliefs relating to institutional maltreatment related policies and practices • Parent perceptions about their child’s understanding of protective behaviour concepts • Behavioural responsiveness to lack of institutional standards

Study type

Primary effectiveness studies (primary studies) and systematic reviews were included. Primary studies were included if they used a randomised controlled trial design, or a quasi-experimental design with a control/comparison group. Reviews were eligible if they reported a systematic literature search strategy, and a subset of studies reported met the eligibility criteria of this EGM. The following study types were excluded: noncontrolled pre-post evaluations; case studies; cross-sectional studies; observational studies; opinion pieces, editorials; studies solely employing qualitative methods. Both finalised and ongoing studies were included. No limitations were placed on the year of publication. Studies reported in the following languages were included: English, German, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Studies in other languages were excluded due to a lack of further available translation resources.

Information sources

Comprehensive electronic database searches were undertaken in July 2019, using key words relating to ‘institutional settings’ and ‘child maltreatment’, and included the following 10 databases: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Informit Families and Society Collection (Australian), Sociology Source Ultimate, Sociological Abstracts, Scopus, The Campbell Collaboration Library and Proquest-Dissertations and Theses. Further searches were undertaken to identify grey literature. This included searches of four trial and systematic review registries; nine organisational websites; and the websites and reference lists of inquiry reports from seven international inquiries into child abuse. The search for grey literature was also expanded based on input from multiple subject matter experts and project stakeholders. All reference lists of included systematic reviews were also screened for additional studies. Further details of the complete search strategy, including individual database search syntax, can be found in the published report (Finch et al., 2021).

Screening and study selection

Seven reviewers were involved in the screening and study selection process. Each title/abstract identified by the search strategy was screened against the selection criteria, by at least two reviewers working independently. The full text of studies that were deemed potentially relevant at the title/abstract screening stage were further assessed by two reviewers working independently. Any discrepancies in the decisions made by reviewers were resolved by an additional reviewer, or by discussion/consensus. Authors who were involved in any of the identified studies did not take part in the screening and selection of those studies. The Covidence platform (Veritas Health Innovation, 2020) was used for literature screening. No automation or text-mining was used to identify studies.

Data Extraction, Coding and Data Management

Five reviewers took part in data extraction, coding and data management. Information within each of the included studies was extracted and coded by two reviewers working independently. Any discrepancies in the decisions made by the first two coders were resolved by an additional reviewer, or by discussion/consensus. Study authors were contacted to obtain missing information. Authors who were involved in any of the identified studies did not take part in data extraction, coding or critical appraisal of those studies. Data extracted from the studies included the following information: the publication/study (e.g. year, first author and country undertaken), study design (e.g. randomisation and comparator groups), institutional setting, target population, type of maltreatment, intervention type and outcomes. The final version of the coding scheme, with all data items, can be found in the published report (Finch et al., 2021).

Quality Appraisal

Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was achieved using the AMSTAR 2 tool (Shea et al., 2017) and completed RCTs were assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (Sterne et al., 2019). Five reviewers were involved in assessing the quality of the included studies. Two reviewers worked independently to assess each study, and any discrepancies were cleared via consensus or by an additional member of the review team working independently. Only RCTs were assessed for their risk of bias; neither protocols, nor primary studies which were not RCTs, were assessed. Systematic reviews that received a ‘critically low’ or ‘low’ assessment using the AMSTAR 2 tool were combined into a single ‘low’ category.

Presentation and Synthesis

The visual EGM was developed using the R Project for Statistical Computing (R Core Team, 2019). As per the EGM framework, the included studies are mapped in a table in which the rows are the intervention categories, and the columns are the outcome categories. A single study appears in several cells on the map if it reported on more than one intervention category and/or more than one outcome category. Study quality has been highlighted by colour (i.e. low risk of bias/high-quality = white, some concerns of bias/moderate-quality = light grey, high risk of bias/low-quality = dark grey).

The visual EGM has been supplemented by a narrative synthesis of the included studies, which encompasses a descriptive summary of the number of studies included in the EGM, and their distribution across different areas of interest, including institutional settings, target population, maltreatment and intervention type.

Results

Included Studies

The search strategy identified 73 studies (across 84 publications): 62 primary effectiveness studies and 11 systematic reviews. Figure 1 shows the flow of studies that were identified from the search strategy, screened and finally included in the EGM. The academic electronic search strategy yielded 6318 citations, and an additional 2375 records from other sources were identified. After removing duplicates and screening titles and abstracts, 256 citations remained for full-text review. A total of 84 eligible publications were identified after full-text review and these reported 73 unique studies. All included studies are listed in the reference list, denoted by an asterisk. The following information can be found in the published report (Finch et al., 2021): details of the source of each publication; a list of excluded studies alongside their primary reason for being excluded.

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram presenting the flow of studies identified by the search strategy, screened and included in the EGM. PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Of the total 84 included publications, 12 were completed systematic reviews. Three of these were scoping reviews that met our systematic review criteria. Two reviews were related: Walsh, Zwi, Woolfenden, & Shlonksy (2015) was an update of an earlier Cochrane review published in 2007 (Zwi et al., 2008). While both are included in the EGM, where the reported characteristics are identical for each (e.g. maltreatment type, institutional setting and target population), they have been represented collectively (i.e. counted as a single study). Where the reported characteristics differ, they have been represented separately (i.e. counted as two separate studies). Seventy-two publications of primary effectiveness studies (primary studies) were identified: 69 were completed studies, and three were ongoing (described in a published protocol where results had not yet been generated; Baker-Henningham, Vera-Hernandez, Alderman, & Walker, 2016; McElearney et al., 2018; Ssenyonga, Hermenau, Nkuba, & Hecker, 2018). Among the primary studies, five publications related to a study evaluating the Good School Toolkit (GST), and reported different outcomes from the same sample or a subset of the same sample (Devries et al., 2015; 2017; 2018; Knight et al., 2018; Merrill et al., 2018). Six publications reported results of the Bucharest Early Intervention Project (BEIP) (Bick et al., 2015; Humphreys et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2010; Smyke et al., 2010; Troller-Renfree et al., 2015; Wade, Fox, Zeanah, & Nelson, 2018). These publications reported the same or different outcomes at various follow-up points from the same sample of children originally randomised for the BEIP. Two further publications reported results from a school-based prevention programme (Fryer, Kraizer, & Miyoshi, 1987; Kraizer, Fryer, & Miller, 1988). Though all of the publications reporting on these three studies are included in the EGM, where the reported characteristics are the same for more than one study (i.e. study design, maltreatment type, institutional setting, target population and country), they have been represented as a single study (i.e. the multiple publications are counted as a single study). Where the outcomes reported across the papers were different, the individual publications have been reported separately (i.e. counted as two separate studies).

Visual Evidence and Gap Map

The visual EGM was based on the EGM framework (see Figure 2). The cells within the map show the number of studies for each study type (RCT, quasi-experimental (QED) and systematic review). A second visual EGM was developed to further highlight the institutional settings addressed by the included studies: early childhood settings, out-of-home care, school, youth services organisations, multiple settings (see Figure 3). Study quality has been highlighted by colour (i.e. low risk of bias/high-quality = white, some concerns of bias/moderate-quality = light grey, high risk of bias/low-quality = dark grey).

Figure 2.

Evidence and gap map of included studies, presenting key intervention categories, outcome categories and study quality/risk of bias. RCT: randomised controlled trial; QED: quasi-experimental study; SR: systematic review.

Figure 3.

Evidence and gap map of included studies, presenting key institutional settings, outcome categories and study quality/risk of bias. RCT: randomised controlled trial; QED: quasi-experimental study; SR: systematic review.

Study Characteristics

Detailed information about the study characteristics of each individual study can be found in the published report (Finch et al., 2021).

Language, publication year, country

One primary study was published in German (Feldmann, Storck, & Pfeffer, 2018) and one primary study was in Spanish (del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006), with the remaining studies published in English. The earliest primary study included in the EGM was published in 1985. No more than four studies were published per year before or during 2011. Of the total studies, 54% were published between 2012 and 2020, with the peak number of completed primary studies published in 2018 (n = 10). The first systematic review was published in 1994, 9 years after the first primary study was published, with the four most recent reviews published in 2017. Just over half of the primary studies were conducted in the United States (n = 32). Canada produced four studies, three studies each came from Germany and the United Kingdom (one from Northern Ireland and two from Scotland), six countries produced two studies each (Turkey, Ireland, China, Spain, The Netherlands and Uganda) and a further eight countries contributed one study each (Australia, Ecuador, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Romania, Taiwan and Tanzania).

Institutional settings

Most primary studies (n = 48) were conducted in school settings, including: primary/elementary school (n = 40), middle school (n = 1), secondary/high school (n = 7), kindergarten to year 12 (K-12) educational settings (i.e. schools inclusive of all years) (n = 1) and out-of-school-hours care programmes (n = 2). Two studies included more than one of these school settings (Barron & Topping, 2013; Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Eleven primary studies were conducted in early childhood settings (e.g. kindergarten, preschool and day-care), and three of these also included primary/elementary school settings (Fryer et al., 1987; Kraizer et al., 1988; Kraizer, 1991; Wurtele et al., 1986). Two primary studies were conducted across multiple settings, which included: health, school and social services agencies who respond to child maltreatment (Cerezo & Pons-Salvador, 2004), and organisations delivering services that children access or attend (e.g. schools, day-care and church organisations) (Rheingold et al., 2014). Three were conducted in out-of-home care, including foster care and orphanages (the BEIP study and associated publications), a residential school for the deaf (Sullivan et al., 1992) and group homes (Van Lieshout et al., 2019). No studies were identified where the primary setting was sports clubs, religious organisations, summer camps, detention centres or primary and secondary health care facilities.

Most of the 11 systematic reviews reported on studies conducted exclusively in school and/or early childhood settings (i.e. kindergartens, preschool and day-care) (n = 5). Of these, one systematic review (plus, one update) included studies reporting both primary/elementary and secondary/high school settings (Walsh et al., 2015; Zwi et al., 2008), one systematic review included early childhood and primary/elementary settings (Heidotting, 1996), one included middle and secondary/high school settings (Ricardo, Eads, & Barker, 2011), one systematic review included several settings (across early childhood, primary/elementary and secondary/high school) (Topping & Barron, 2009) and one included only early childhood settings (Pitts, 2015). Of the remaining five systematic reviews, four focused on residential care (e.g. orphanages and out-of-home care) (Hermenau et al., 2017; McKibbin, 2017; Sherr, Roberts, & Gandhi, 2017; South et al., 2015). Two systematic reviews included studies conducted across various settings (Quadara, Nagy, Higgins, & Siegel, 2015; Radford, Foster, Barter, & Stanley, 2017), including school and early childhood settings, voluntary and faith-based organisations and sports clubs (coded as ‘multiple settings’).

Target population

Among the completed and ongoing primary studies, most evaluated interventions for children in organisations (n = 45). Six studies assessed interventions solely for institutional staff and/or adult care providers (e.g. teachers, after-school-hours care staff, day-care staff, youth service organisation staff and health and social services agency staff) (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; Cerezo & Pons-Salvador, 2004; Gushwa, Bernier, & Robinson, 2018; Nkuba, Hermenau, Goessmann, & Hecker, 2018; Rheingold et al., 2014; Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Nine studies assessed interventions for both children and institutional care staff and/or adult care providers (GST study; Baker et al., 2012; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; Edwards et al., 2019; Kolko et al., 1987, 1989; Kraizer, 1991; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999a; Taal & Edelaar, 1997).

Most reviews (n = 7) examined interventions solely for children, one included evaluations of interventions targeting only institutional staff and/or adult care providers (e.g. teachers) (Hermenau et al., 2017), and four reviews included studies assessing interventions for either or both of these populations (Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017; Sherr et al., 2017; South et al., 2015).

Types of maltreatment

Most completed and ongoing primary studies included interventions that had a singular focus on sexual abuse (n = 46), with 10 additional studies focussing on sexual abuse alongside other maltreatment types (total sexual abuse: n = 57). Four primary studies assessed interventions specifically addressing physical abuse, and a further 10 incorporated physical abuse alongside other maltreatment types (total physical abuse: n = 14). Child neglect was the primary focus of the BEIP study, and three other studies also addressed neglect alongside other maltreatment types (total neglect: n = 4). No study focussed exclusively on emotional abuse, but emotional abuse was considered in the GST study and four others (total emotional abuse: n = 5).

Of the 11 systematic reviews, eight (plus one update) included studies that reported on interventions relating solely to sexual abuse. The other three systematic reviews included primary studies that reported on one or more types of child maltreatment. Hermenau et al. (2017) and Sherr et al. (2017) included studies assessing physical and emotional abuse, as well as neglect, and Ricardo et al. (2011) included studies reporting on sexual, physical and emotional abuse.

Quality Appraisal

Of the 49 reports of completed RCTs, all were assessed to have either a ‘high risk’ of bias (n = 18) or ‘some concerns’ (n = 31) using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (See Figure 3). No study received an overall assessment of low risk. Refer to the published report for the overall risk of bias assessment and assessments for individual studies (Finch et al., 2021).

Overall, most systematic reviews (n = 10) were assessed as being of low quality (i.e. low confidence in the reported results) using the AMSTAR 2 checklist (Heidotting, 1996; Hermenau et al., 2017; McKibbin, 2017; Pitts, 2015; Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017; Ricardo et al., 2011; Sherr et al., 2017; South et al., 2015; Topping & Barron, 2009). Two received a high-quality rating (i.e. high confidence in the reported results) (Zwi et al., 2008; and update Walsh et al., 2015).

Interventions

Following the EGM framework and coding, interventions were categorised as prevention, disclosure, response or treatment approaches. For a further detailed synthesis and description of the interventions reported within the studies, refer to the extended report (Finch et al., 2021).

Prevention

The overwhelming majority of studies assessed the effectiveness of prevention interventions (n = 58 primary studies; n = 5 systematic reviews), and a smaller number included prevention approaches alongside other intervention types (n = 2 primary studies; n = 5 systematic reviews). Prevention interventions were defined as any intervention where the primary aim was to decrease the likelihood or risk of child maltreatment occurring or recurring in the future. This encompassed universal interventions for any child or adult, as well as interventions aimed at specific populations. Examples of the types of prevention interventions that could be included were school-based safety programmes, organisational guidelines/practices and interventions to reduce perpetrator reoffending.

Most prevention interventions were delivered in an educational setting and were curriculum-based, with a focus on increasing child awareness and understanding of sexual abuse, and teaching self-protection skills (n = 54). For most (n = 43), the main intervention involved workshops or lessons, alongside written, audio-visual or other resources (e.g. films or plays, images, activity books and parent resources), and was delivered directly to children in groups via an external agency or existing trained institutional staff or students. The intensity of these sessions varied from brief standalone educational programs involving single sessions (Daigneault, Hebert, McDuff, & Frappier, 2012; Pulido et al., 2015); delivery of between two to eight lessons over the course of 1–2 weeks (Cecen-Erogul & Hasirci, 2013; Conte, 1985; Dake, Price, & Murnan, 2003; Fryer et al., 1987; Jin, Chen, Jiang, & Yu, 2017; White et al., 2018; Wurtele, Gillispie, et al., 1992), and more intense delivery with multiple lessons delivered over longer periods ranging from 5 to 10 weeks (Citak Tunc et al., 2018; Dryden, Desmarais, & Arsenault, 2014; Taylor, Stein, & Burden, 2010; Van Lieshout et al., 2019; Weatherley et al., 2012). One additional study assessed a school-based rape prevention intervention consisting of three 45-min sessions (Hillenbrand-Gunn, Heppner, Mauch, & Park, 2010).

Twelve primary studies reported on interventions that aimed to improve the knowledge, attitudes and practices of the organisation’s staff via training – some with and some without follow-up support – in educational settings (n = 9), and multiple youth service organisations (n = 2). Among these interventions, training for staff ranged from a brief 1 hour session (Gushwa et al., 2018), up to 5 days (Ssenyonga et al., 2018), with inclusion of follow-up support strategies such as in-school coaching (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; Dryden et al., 2014), performance feedback and text messaging (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016), and supervision and peer networks (Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Two of these interventions involved online or web-based delivery (Rheingold et al., 2014; Gushwa et al., 2018).

Four school-based prevention interventions used more comprehensive approaches, seeking to embed the programme across the broader school community, and included multiple strategies (combined with curriculum approaches) delivered over a longer timeframe (from two terms, up to a year) (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; GST study; McElearney et al., 2018; Ratto & Bogat, 1990). For example, the GST was aimed at multiple levels within the schools including head teachers, administration, classroom teachers and students with multilayered training, processes and school-led activities for each level.

Ten systematic reviews included studies reporting on prevention interventions. Most systematic reviews included studies that evaluated programmes in educational settings (e.g. schools and early childhood settings) to prevent sexual abuse, either as sole focus or reported alongside studies assessing other intervention types (n = 7) (Heidotting, 1996; Pitts, 2015; Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017; Ricardo et al., 2011; Topping & Barron, 2009; Walsh et al., 2015; Zwi et al., 2008). The remaining three reviews (McKibbin, 2017; Sherr et al., 2017; South et al., 2015), included prevention interventions delivered in out-of-home care settings.

Disclosure

Disclosure interventions were defined as any intervention that aimed to facilitate, support or promote the disclosure of child maltreatment. This encompassed a range of universal interventions, such as traditional or social media campaigns, or child helplines, as well as therapeutic interventions for children that aimed to promote disclosure (e.g. play therapy). It included tertiary interventions relating to perpetrators, such as mandatory reporting, and also included any intervention that aimed to promote disclosure within an organisational context (e.g. staff training and organisational guidelines).

No primary studies were evaluations of interventions aiming solely to facilitate disclosure of child maltreatment. However, multiple prevention interventions included components that aimed to provide children with knowledge and/or skills to disclose maltreatment to a trusted adult. Nine studies evaluating these interventions included participant rates of disclosure either during or directly after participation (Czerwinski, Fine, Alfes, & Kolip, 2018; Daigneault et al., 2015; Devries et al., 2015; Barron & Topping, 2013; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; Hazzard et al., 1991; Kolko, 1987; Kolko et al., 1989; Oldfield, Hays, & Megel, 1996), and two studies specifically assessed disclosures rates of children currently suspected of experiencing abuse, who had at some point in the past taken part in one of these programs (MacIntyre & Carr, 1999b; Elfriech et al., 2020).

Two reviews searched for primary studies assessing interventions aiming to increase disclosure (Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017). However, these reviews either did not identify primary studies, or did not identify primary studies that met our inclusion criteria for disclosure interventions.

Response

Response interventions were defined as any intervention that aimed to improve institutional responses to the occurrence of child maltreatment in relation to each of the target populations. Response interventions included legal or regulatory mechanisms aimed at introducing new procedures for institutions to follow, organisational guidelines and/or practices (e.g. response framework), support for the victim and/or family, working with child protection agencies and providing training and/or crisis support to staff within organisations. Response interventions were evaluated by fewer studies (n = 2 primary studies; n = 5 systematic reviews), and for all bar one systematic review (Hermenau et al., 2017), these were reported alongside, or combined with, prevention-focused interventions.

Cerezo and Pons-Salvador (2004) used a quasi-experimental approach to assess a largescale intervention that aimed to increase detection of child maltreatment across a single territory in Spain. The intervention involved professional training based on motivational interviewing approaches and support. It was delivered in multiple settings to professionals from all frontline health and social services agencies, and schools, in the territory. An RCT reported by Rheingold et al. (2014) compared a web-based and in-person training versions of an intervention with a dual focus on preventing and responding to child sexual abuse among children (ranging from 0 to 18 years). It was delivered to staff from youth service organisations including schools, churches, day-care, extracurricular activity agencies, state agencies, group home/residential settings and healthcare settings. The programme included education about child sexual abuse, ways to minimise child sexual abuse, how to recognise the signs and how to respond appropriately when a child discloses (Rheingold et al., 2014).

Only one of the five reviews focussed solely on interventions relating to institutional responses to child maltreatment (Hermenau et al., 2017). This review investigated the effects of structural interventions and caregiver trainings on child development, for children living full time in institutional care environments across the world (e.g. orphanages and residential care). It included interventions that aimed to change the organisational structure and culture of the institutions, as well as the ways in which caregivers interact with children. The four remaining reviews included studies assessing response interventions alongside other intervention types (Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017; Sherr et al., 2017; South et al., 2015).

Treatment

Treatment interventions were assessed by fewer studies still (n = 2 primary studies; n = 2 systematic reviews). Treatment interventions were defined as any intervention that aimed to provide a therapeutic response to a target population. This included therapeutic interventions provided to children who experienced child maltreatment in institutions, and interventions targeted at perpetrators of institutional child abuse.

Two primary studies assessed the effectiveness of treatment interventions, including the six reports describing the BEIP. The BEIP study randomly assigned children in Romanian orphanages to remain in institutional care or be removed and placed in high-quality foster care (the treatment intervention). Sullivan et al. (1992) used a quasi-experimental approach to assess the effectiveness of a treatment intervention for hearing-impaired children between the ages of 12 and 16 years, who had been sexually abused while attending a residential school for the deaf. The psychotherapeutic intervention was offered to the children by the school and involved 2 h of individual therapy per week for 36 weeks, delivered by a clinical psychologist and a supervising psychiatrist with expertise in the psychology of deafness and fluency in sign language (Sullivan et al., 1992).

A scoping review by McKibbin (2017) examined treatment interventions focused on harmful sexual behaviour and child sexual exploitation among children and young people living in out-of-home care. This review included 17 papers describing interventions, including treatment interventions, for young people who display harmful sexual behaviour. The authors concluded that evidence about the elements of a successful tertiary prevention response, including trauma-informed therapeutic treatment was well-developed particularly in the UK. The review by Quadara et al. (2015) examined prevention, early intervention and therapeutic responses to child sexual abuse and described one study comparing children in institutions with home-based care as a form of treatment.

Outcomes

This section describes the outcomes of interest to the EGM that were measured and reported across the included studies. For a further detailed synthesis and description of the outcomes reported across the studies, refer to the extended report (Finch et al., 2021).

Institutional safeguarding practice

Twelve primary studies reported outcomes related to institutional safeguarding practice: eight focused on operational practice (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; Cerezo & Pons-Salvador, 2004; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; Gushwa et al., 2018; Kolko et al., 1987; 1989; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999a; Rheingold et al., 2014) and four on institutional culture (McElearney et al., 2018; Merrill et al., 2018; Nkuba et al., 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Operational practice outcomes were reported in studies evaluating both prevention and response interventions targeting staff in schools (Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; Gushwa et al., 2018; Kolko et al., 1987; 1989; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999a) and youth service agencies and organisations (Cerezo & Pons-Salvador, 2004; Rheingold et al., 2014). Specific outcomes reported included: teachers’ knowledge and awareness of child sexual abuse, child abuse prevention behaviours by staff, and detection and reporting of child maltreatment. The four studies reporting on changes in institutional culture each evaluated school-based interventions (McElearney et al., 2018; Merrill et al., 2018; Nkuba et al., 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Specific reported outcomes included: teacher willingness to teach sexual health and safety, change in teachers’ attitudes to violent discipline and use of violent disciplinary methods, and student and teacher assessed attitudes toward emotional and physical violence toward children.

Two recently published systematic reviews included interventions delivered in out-of-home care settings (Hermenau et al., 2017; McKibbin, 2017). Hermenau et al. (2017) included studies that assessed interventions aimed at improving the quality of care in institutional environments, reporting a broad range of outcome measures and measurement instruments used to assess changes in caregiving and institutional quality and attachment. They included institutional safeguarding practice outcomes relating to both operational practice (e.g. measures assessing changes in caregiving quality, child-caregiver ratios) and the institutional environment (e.g. measures of environmental quality and structural changes to the institutional environment). A scoping review by McKibbin (2017) included studies reporting on interventions addressing harmful sexual behaviour and child sexual exploitation for children and young people living in residential care. The reported institutional safeguarding practice outcomes were related to operational practice, and included outcomes measuring staff members' knowledge about, and skills relating to, recognising children’s problematic sexual behaviour (McKibbin, 2017).

Child maltreatment disclosure

Eleven reports of primary studies reported outcomes relating to child maltreatment disclosure (Czerwinski et al., 2018; Elfreich et al., 2020; Daigneault et al., 2015; Devries et al., 2015; Barron & Topping, 2013; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999b; Hazzard et al., 1991; Oldfield et al., 1996; Kolko et al., 1987, 1989). All of these studies evaluated school-based interventions aiming to prevent child maltreatment. Outcome measures included: participant, teacher and/or parent reported disclosure of sexual abuse over the course of the intervention and evaluation (Barron & Topping, 2013; del Campo Sánchez & Sánchez, 2006; Hazzard et al., 1991; Kolko et al., 1987; 1989; Oldfield et al., 1996); child reported courses of action in response to hypothetical scenarios, including: possible disclosure options (Czerwinski et al., 2018), child-reported likelihood of future disclosure (Kolko et al., 1989), youth recognition of sexual assault and response to a hypothetical disclosure of sexual assault (Daigneault et al., 2015), and students’ self-reports of physical violence from school staff (assessed in a follow-up survey) (Devries et al., 2015). Two studies (Elfreich et al., 2020; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999b) specifically assessed disclosure rates of children who were suspected of experiencing maltreatment and who had at some point in the past taken part in a school-based prevention programme. MacIntyre and Carr (1999b) reported children’s disclosure of sexual abuse after they had been referred to a sexual abuse assessment unit, and Elfreich et al. (2020) assessed child disclosure of abuse during forensic interviews.

Three systematic reviews included studies reporting on interventions' impact on disclosure-related outcomes. A high-quality review by Walsh et al. (2015) (an update of Zwi et al., 2008) included school-based sexual abuse programmes, and reported on disclosure of sexual abuse by child or adolescent participants during or after undertaking a programme. Pitts (2015) included studies that reported on the disclosure of child sexual abuse. Radford et al. (2017) also included studies that reported on measures of safe disclosure (e.g. rates of disclosure) to peers, adults, institutions and services, including disclosure of nonrecent abuse.

Child safety – maltreatment occurrence or reoccurrence

Thirteen completed and ongoing primary studies reported/will report outcomes related to child maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence (GST; Nkuba et al., 2018; Taylor et al., 2010; Baker-Henningham et al., 2016; McElearney et al., 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Eleven studies evaluated interventions focused on preventing maltreatment in educational settings (e.g. schools and day-care), with most addressing physical violence. Outcome measures included: student self-reported violence perpetrated by staff (Good School Kit); teacher and student reports of emotional and physical violence (Nkuba et al., 2018); and student-reported exposure to violence (Ssenyonga et al., 2018); and teacher-reported use of violent disciplinary methods (Ssenyonga et al., 2018). A further two QED studies used a child-report questionnaire to determine childrens’ experiences of inappropriate touching involving an uncomfortable or potentially abusive interaction (Kolko et al., 1987, 1989).

Three systematic reviews included interventions delivered in residential care settings that reported on child maltreatment occurrence/reoccurrence (Hermenau et al., 2017; Sherr et al., 2017; South et al., 2015). Outcomes examined included: self-reports or observations of maltreatment from staff/adults (physical/emotional), as well as peer to peer violence in institutional care (Sherr et al., 2017), sexual abuse in out-of-home care (South et al., 2015), exposure to violence of children living in a child care institution (Hermenau et al., 2017), and documented abuse in official records (Sherr et al., 2017).

Child wellbeing

Child wellbeing outcomes were coded into five subcategories: knowledge and awareness, mental health, cognitive functioning, social functioning, and health and development.

Across the child wellbeing outcome subcategories, more primary studies reported outcomes relating to knowledge and awareness (n = 51) than primary studies reporting mental health outcomes (e.g. internalising and externalising behaviours, self-esteem and emotional intelligence; n = 23), outcomes relating to child cognitive functioning (e.g. education scores, memory and executive functioning; n = 5), social functioning (e.g. communication, self-control and social connections and relationships; n = 6) or physical health and development (e.g. brain development; n = 2). All 51 studies reporting child knowledge and awareness outcomes evaluated curriculum-based prevention interventions delivered in educational settings, with most focussing on child sexual abuse. Fewer studies assessed changes in participant knowledge and awareness about other child maltreatment types, such as physical or emotional abuse (n = 7) (Barron & Topping, 2013; Dake et al., 2003; Dhooper & Schneider, 1995; Dryden et al., 2014; Edwards et al., 2019; Kraizer, 1991; Wolfe, MacPherson, Blount, & Wolfe, 1986).

Nine systematic reviews included studies that assessed interventions’ impact on child knowledge and awareness (e.g. knowledge of child sexual abuse and protective behaviours, attitudes towards violence and knowledge of safe sexual relationships; Walsh et al., 2015; Heidotting, 1996; Pitts, 2015; Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017; Topping & Barron, 2009; Sherr et al., 2017; McKibbin, 2017; Ricardo et al., 2011). Six systematic reviews included studies that assessed an interventions’ impact on child mental health outcomes (e.g. externalising and internalising symptoms, post-traumatic stress symptoms, self-esteem and aggression; Walsh et al., 2015; Pitts, 2015; Topping & Barron, 2009; Sherr et al., 2017; Hermenau et al., 2017). One systematic review that evaluated interventions delivered in institutionalised care, included studies that reported child cognitive functioning outcomes, including child mental development, language development and intelligence (Hermenau et al., 2017). Hermenau et al. (2017) was the only systematic review that included studies evaluating interventions' impact on child social functioning, including outcomes relating to children’s social-emotional competencies and skills, as well as attachment and caregiver relationships. This was also the only review that reported on child physical development and health outcomes, including psychomotor development specifically, as well as general development (including cognitive, language, social-emotional development).

Outcomes related to adult perpetrators or child/youth offenders

Two studies reporting outcomes relating to adult perpetrators and child/youth offenders. Baker-Henningham et al. (2016) reported on an ongoing RCT for a prevention focused study that plans to include observations of teachers' use of violence against children in day-care settings in Jamaica. Edwards et al. (2019) evaluated a bystander-focused interpersonal violence prevention programme with high school students in the United States, reporting self-reported youth offender outcomes including sexual harassment, sexual assault and stalking victimisation and perpetration among high school students.

No systematic review reported outcomes for adult perpetrators or child/youth offenders that specifically related to child maltreatment that occurred in an institutional setting.

Parent or caregiver behaviour, knowledge or attitudes

Five studies reported parent or caregiver behaviour, knowledge or attitudes (Merrill et al., 2018; Wurtele, Gillispie, et al., 1992; McElearney et al., 2018; Kolko et al., 1987). Wurtele, Gillispie, et al. (1992) compared teachers and parents as instructors of a personal safety programme delivered to preschool children and assessed parents' perceptions of their child’s understanding of protective behaviour concepts, and their application of those behaviours. Merrill et al. (2018) assessed changes in parental normative beliefs relating to school-based physical discipline when assessing the GST programme (Merrill et al., 2018). In their evaluation of a multicomponent ‘whole-school’ programme designed to teach 4–11 year olds how to keep safe from all forms of maltreatment, McElearney et al. (2018) will assess parents' confidence in talking to their children about keeping safe. Kolko et al. (1987) reported changes to parental knowledge about sexual abuse when evaluating a school-based sexual abuse prevention intervention.

No systematic review reported outcomes related to parent or caregiver behaviour, knowledge or attitudes.

Intervention implementation

Of the primary studies, 23 reported outcomes relating to the implementation of the intervention, including one ongoing study (Ssenyonga et al., 2018). Outcomes representing feasibility (i.e. the utility, fit or practicality of the implemented programme), adoption (i.e. uptake or utilisation of the intervention), fidelity (i.e. the degree to which an intervention was implemented as it was intended), acceptability (i.e. perception among implementation stakeholders that an intervention is satisfactory in relation to content, complexity, comfort, delivery and credibility) and penetration (i.e. reach, spread and institutionalisation) (Proctor et al., 2011), were reported across these studies. Aspects of fidelity were assessed in 15 studies, acceptability was reported in 11, five studies reported aspects of penetration (Devries et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2018; Nkuba et al., 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2018; White et al., 2018), and feasibility (Nkuba et al., 2018; Ssenyonga et al., 2018) and adoption (Devries et al., 2017; Knight et al., 2018) were each reported by two studies.

Adverse outcomes

An EGM is not designed to report on the direction of findings in relation to the reported outcomes. Therefore, we cannot report adverse effects on outcomes where the intervention had a negative effect but was hoped to have a positive effect (e.g. knowledge of sexual abuse). However, some studies included specific outcomes that aimed to capture adverse effects. For example, measures of anxiety, and fear and touch aversion, were commonly used to assess whether education-based prevention programmes targeting the sexual abuse of children had a negative effect on their wellbeing. For the most part, these programmes did not appear to adversely impact children. A single study (Taylor et al., 2010) reported that an intervention addressing gender violence and sexual harassment, delivered to sixth and seventh graders, reduced peer violence victimisation and perpetration, but may have increased dating violence perpetration, or at least the reporting of it.

Discussion and Applications to Practice

Overall, there were more evidence gaps across the EGM than areas with high-quality evidence, and most of the studies included in the EGM were low to moderate quality. Therefore, any assessment of effectiveness of the interventions on the reported outcomes should be cautiously interpreted. This, combined with the fact that most studies were published in the last 5 years, suggests that empirical research on the effectiveness of interventions addressing child maltreatment in institutions is very much at an early stage and highlights a considerable need for further research.

Most studies focused on children, on prevention and on sexual abuse specifically. This is not proportionate to the prevalence of different maltreatment types. For example, current estimates suggest that physical abuse is at least as prevalent as sexual abuse (WHO, 2014). Most studies targeted universal child populations, with far fewer targeting children who are high-risk or who had already been exposed to maltreatment. That most of the studies evaluate interventions for children raises some concerns that could reasonably be framed as ‘unintended harm’. While children have rights to provision, protection and participation in areas that affect them, relying solely on interventions focussing on children potentially places the burden of responsibility of prevention and disclosure of child maltreatment on children, rather than on perpetrators of abuse or on the organisations that serve them. Of further concern is that, by focussing on children in this way, the child may feel responsible or may be blamed if maltreatment occurs. Sadly, there is a long history of blaming the victim, especially with respect to violent sexual offenses such as rape. Asking the question, ‘What can I do differently to prevent becoming a victim?’ can easily translate into self-blame if maltreatment occurs.

There is a clear need for more high-quality evaluations of interventions that cover the whole spectrum of players that this issue concerns, including children, perpetrators, adults in institutional environments, as well as the institutional environment itself. In some cases, this kind of research can be unpopular and difficult to promote or fund, such as research on offenders. However, in this instance the onus of responsibility should be on governments, funding agencies, criminal justice systems and the institutions themselves, who have been unwilling or unable to fund offender prevention, response, and treatment interventions now and in the past.

Education and early childhood settings were by far the most well-studied. This is perhaps not surprising, given that most children have more contact with schools than any other institution and studying children in schools is relatively easy. In contrast, evidence assessing the effectiveness of interventions across other institutions, such as out-of-home care (e.g. foster care, residential care and orphanages), was very limited. For many types of institutions within our scope, there were no specific studies at all. For instance, there were no studies specifically targeting religious organisations, sports clubs or other recreational settings.

There are several potential explanations for this. While it is certainly the case that many institutional settings have not adequately addressed child maltreatment, there are also instances where interventions have been implemented, but have not yet been evaluated or have not been evaluated in an institutional context. The EGM’s eligibility criteria excluded studies that did not explicitly define an institutional setting. However, there are also evaluations that either focus on maltreatment in family settings, or do not specify where the maltreatment occurred. Taking this into account, it is possible that existing evidence-based interventions targeting general populations, or specific populations outside of an institutional setting, may also be effective, or may be adapted and be effectively used within an institutional context. For instance, interventions targeting sexual abuse perpetrators could possibly be adapted to specifically target people who perpetrated sexual abuse in an institutional setting. Or, interventions targeting staff in schools may be adapted to target staff in other organisational contexts. However, this approach has limitations: institutional environments are diverse, and one-size-fits-all interventions are unlikely to be effective without at least some modifications. There are also differences in risk factors for perpetrators and victims, as well as differences in the experience, perpetration and response to maltreatment both across different institutional settings, and when compared to other settings where maltreatment occurs (Quadara et al., 2015; Radford et al., 2017). These factors would need to be considered when adapting existing interventions to (other) institutional environments.

Though the studies look at many countries, the evidence is dominated by studies undertaken in the United States and Europe. It is clear therefore, that the available research does not currently represent countries with the largest populations (and, potentially the greatest incidence of child maltreatment), nor does it represent countries with the highest estimated prevalence of child maltreatment (WHO, 2014).

Most of the included studies assessed education or skills-based interventions delivered to children. Fewer were delivered to institutional staff, teachers and/or adult care providers. There was a lack of evidence targeting adult perpetrators and only one study of youth offenders, and where evidence was identified, the focus was primarily on children who display sexually aggressive behaviour toward other children. Most interventions focussed on sexual abuse – and specifically on preventing sexual abuse. Though we did identify a cluster of studies focused on addressing physical violence in schools (including harsh discipline), far fewer interventions targeted other maltreatment types.

A further major gap was identified in relation to studies evaluating interventions that specifically aimed to improve disclosure. Interventions with a particular focus on disclosure were not studied in any of the primary studies that were found and included in only one systematic review. However, there were a number of studies reporting on disclosure outcomes relating to prevention programs which included disclosure components. Evidence supporting the effectiveness of organisational response-based approaches was lacking in both breadth and quality. Of the small number of studies, only one was an RCT, which evaluated a very brief staff training intervention. Studies that assessed treatment interventions that addressed child maltreatment experienced or perpetrated in institutional settings were also extremely limited and solely focused on out-of-home care settings. Prevention-based interventions were by far the most highly represented group of interventions. Of these, most reported on school-based interventions that primarily aimed to provide children with knowledge and skills to better protect themselves from maltreatment, often with elements geared toward normalising and promoting help-seeking.

The predominance of curriculum-based interventions in education settings targeted toward children is also reflected in the outcomes presented in the EGM. Across all the included studies, outcomes relating to child knowledge and awareness were reported more than any other type of outcome. Child mental health and maltreatment occurrence outcomes were also reported in a substantial number of studies. It is perhaps not surprising, given the nature of child maltreatment and its measurement in institutional contexts, that these studies mostly focused on short-term, self-report risk indicators for maltreatment rather than measurements of whether maltreatment actually occurred. Overall, reported outcomes tended to focus on children, and not perpetrators. Direct measures of perpetrator maltreatment behaviours, recidivism and desistence were included in only two primary studies.

Despite lowering our inclusion criteria for primary studies well below the RCT threshold, there was scarce evidence reporting outcomes relating to institutional safeguarding practices that may better support the prevention, disclosure, and organisational responses to child maltreatment. Unfortunately, these gaps may be due to a lack of concerted, rigorous efforts at evaluation within institutional settings. Though the reasons for this are unknown, it is potentially associated with a reluctance to look closely at institutional failures and to evaluate them in a way that builds the knowledge base for prevention work in this area. The past has seen a larger research focus on maltreatment in family/home settings than in institutions. This is only now being challenged as victims of child sexual and physical abuse recount their experiences, seeking justice and restitution, sparking numerous inquiries across the world. Hopefully, this level of scrutiny and a demand for a meaningful response will translate into a growing number of safeguarding approaches that are rigorously evaluated.

Finally, only a third of the studies reported one or more outcomes that related to implementation. These included measures of feasibility, adoption, fidelity, acceptability, and intervention penetration. Implementation outcomes are ‘the effects of deliberate and purposive actions to implement new treatments, practices, and services’ and describe the result of intentional actions to deliver a policy or an intervention (see Proctor et al., 2011). Measuring implementation is important in determining how or whether an intervention was delivered as intended, information that is essential to ascertaining its effectiveness. Moreover, the effectiveness of an intervention may be compromised by insufficient attention to implementation. Measures of implementation also provide information about whether an intervention is acceptable to participants, and/or whether it is likely to be successfully adopted in real life contexts. The fact that most studies in the EGM did not report on measures of implementation is concerning, given that many studies reported on interventions which were delivered by multiple individuals (e.g. practitioners and trained staff) and across multiple study sites. This creates ample scope for variation in what gets delivered, which may impact the reliability of a study’s findings.

Overall, the evidence included in the EGM is sparse and of low to moderate quality. There is much need for further high-quality research, specifically: evaluating interventions in a broader range of institutions; in countries with the largest populations, in which the greatest prevalence of child maltreatment in institutions is likely to occur; assessing interventions that focus on perpetrators and the organisational environment (as well as children); assessing interventions addressing a broader range of maltreatment types (i.e. not only sexual abuse); assessing interventions focussed on disclosure, organisational responses, and treatment (both victim/survivor and offender); assessing interventions targeting perpetrators, maltreatment behaviours, recidivism, and desistence; and assessment and reporting of implementation outcomes.

Given that the evidence-base for interventions specifically addressing institutional child maltreatment is sparse, it is difficult to assess whether an intervention which achieved some result in one location or setting would achieve that same result elsewhere. For instance, could school-based education and skills training interventions be appropriately translated to other institutions and/or other populations? For example, could the kind of child trainings which have been studied schools be delivered at Scouts? Could training for teachers be delivered to clergy? Could effective institutional safeguarding practices or policies be adapted to other organisational contexts and/or personnel? Are treatment principles for children who experienced maltreatment in other settings appropriate and effective for children who experienced maltreatment in an institutional environment? Or, are interventions for perpetrators as effective with populations of perpetrators who abused within an institutional setting?

Clearly, interventions that are moved from one type of setting to another may not work as well there. This highlights the importance of continuing to evaluate an intervention when it is delivered somewhere other than the setting it has been shown to be effective in. For example, if an education and training intervention which has been effective when delivered in schools, is used in a sports or recreational setting, it should be further evaluated there. Similarly, an education and training intervention for school staff to prevent child physical and emotional abuse may be transferrable to coaches and mentors in sport and recreation contexts but would need to be evaluated with those personnel in their contexts.

Limitations

The EGM involved an extensive and rigorous search for peer reviewed and grey literature and examined over 8000 citations. We also sought relevant studies from contact with experts in the field. Despite this, it is possible that some studies relating to institutional responses to child maltreatment were missed. When screening at the title or abstract level, we may have incorrectly excluded some studies where information provided did not clearly reveal relevance to the setting or topic. Similarly, some relevant studies with crossover to settings outside the scope of our EGM, including health or clinical settings, may have been excluded based on the setting criteria. Snowballing techniques were not used for screening primary studies, and though we screened the primary studies included in the included systematic reviews, we did not screen all the studies in their reference lists.

Though the search terms were carefully designed, and piloted, relevant studies could still have been missed because of our included terms or because of variations in database indexing. There may have been studies in other languages that were not picked up by our search strategy, or studies that used different language/terms to describe institutional settings or child maltreatment. We will further assess the appropriateness of search terms in future updates to ensure that the search terms include relevant terminology.

Finally, due to unclear reporting, it was at times difficult to categorise intervention type, and identify the exact institutional setting where the intervention was delivered or where the abuse took place. As a result, we categorised the information based on what was available, and at times, some assumptions were necessary.

Conclusion

This EGM shows a need for more high-quality studies that assess interventions across a broad range of institutional contexts and maltreatment types. The evidence gaps are particularly evident for countries with large populations, and therefore the greatest number of children affected by child maltreatment. Few studies focussed on perpetrators or organisational environments. Evidence gaps were also identified for interventions relating to disclosure, organisational responses and treatment, and few studies were identified that assessed an intervention’s impact on perpetrators’ maltreatment behaviours, recidivism and desistence. There is also need for more studies to measure and report on implementation.

Footnotes

Author Note

Porticus commissioned this review to support its own and others’ ongoing work to enhance organisational safeguarding. To ensure that all standards to produce a Campbell Collaboration EGM were met, Porticus was not involved in any technical steps taken to produce the EGM, including information retrieval, data analysis and reporting of findings.

Prof. Aron Shlonsky, Dr. Robyn Mildon and Dr. Bianca Albers have co-authored publications commissioned by the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These authors were not involved in decisions about the inclusion of their own studies in this EGM.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This EGM was funded by Porticus, an international organisation managing and developing the philanthropic programmes of charitable entities established by Brenninkmeijer family entrepreneurs.

ORCID iDs

Rebecca Featherston

David J. A. Taylor

References

Albers

Fiennes

Shlonsky

Finch

Bjørndal

Hennessy

Mildon

, ... (2019). PROTOCOL: Evidence and gap map protocol: Institutional responses to child maltreatment. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3), e1039. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1039

Albers

Mildon

(2016). Implementation best practice: A rapid evidence assessment. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2016-05/apo-nid64146.pdf

Allroggen

Ohlert

Rau

Fegert

J. M.

(2018). Sexual abuse prevalence rates of residents in institutional care settings compared with a population representative sample. Residential Treatment for Children & Youth, 35(4), 286–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0886571X.2018.1455561

Australian Government (2017). Royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report

Baker-Henningham

Vera-Hernandez

Alderman

Walker

(2016). Irie Classroom Toolbox: A study protocol for a cluster- randomised trial of a universal violence prevention programme in Jamaican preschools. BMJ, 6(5), e012166. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012166

Baker

C. K.

Gleason

Naai

Mitchell

Trecker

(2012). Increasing knowledge of sexual abuse: A study with elementary school children in Hawai’i. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 167–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512468796

Barron

I. G.

Topping

K. J.

(2013). Exploratory evaluation of a school-based child sexual abuse prevention program. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 22(8), 931–948. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2013.841788

Bick

Stamoulis

Fox

A. N.

Zeanah

Nelson

A. C.

(2015). Effect of early institutionalization and foster care on long-term white matter development: A randomized clinical trial. Early Institutionalization and Foster Care, 169(3), 211. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3212

Bjørnseth

Szabo

(2018). Sexual violence against children in sports and exercise: A systematic literature review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(4), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477222

10.

Blakemore

Hebert

J. L.

Arney

Parkinson

(2017). Impacts of institutional child sexual abuse on victims/survivors: A rapid review of research findings. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/research_report_-_impacts_of_institutional_child_sexual_abuse_on_victims_survivors_-_treatment_and_support_need.pdf

11.

Blumberg

E. J.

Chadwick

M. W.

Fogarty

L. A.

Speth

T. W.

Chadwick

D. L.

(1991). The touch discrimination component of sexual abuse prevention training: Unanticipated positive consequences. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 6(1), 12–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/088626091006001002

12.

Bustamante

Andrade

Mikesekk

Cullen

Endara

Burneo

Grunauer

(2019). I have the right to feel safe”: Evaluation of a school-based child sexual abuse prevention program in Ecuador. Child Abuse & Neglect, 91, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.02.009

13.

Cecen-Erogul

A. R.

Hasirci

K. O.

(2013). The effectiveness of psycho-educational school-based child sexual abuse prevention training program on Turkish elementary students. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 13(2), 725–729.

14.

Cerezo

M. A.

Pons-Salvador

(2004). Improving child maltreatment detection systems: A large-scale case study involving health, social services, and school professionals. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28(11), 1153–1169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.06.007

15.

Chen

Forston

Tseng

(2012). Pilot evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention program for Taiwanese children. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(6), 621–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.726699

16.

Citak Tunc

Gorak

G. G.

Ozyazicioglu

Isil

Vural

(2018). Preventing child sexual abuse: Body safety training for young children in Turkey. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 27(4), 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477001

17.

Conte

J. R.

Rosen

Saperstein

Shermack

(1985). An evaluation of a program to prevent the sexual victimization of young children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 9(3), 319–328. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(85)90027-4

18.

Crowley

K.J.

(1990). Evaluation of good touches/bad touches: A program to prevent child sexual abuse in school-age children [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. Pace University.

19.

Czerwinski

Fine

Alfes

Kolip

(2018). Effectiveness of a school-based intervention to prevent child sexual abuse: Evaluation of the German IGEL program. Child Abuse & Neglect, 86, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.08.023

20.

Daigneault

Hebert

McDuff

Frappier

(2012). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention workshop in a multicultural, impoverished urban area. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(5), 521–542. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.703291

21.

Daigneault

Hebert

McDuff

Michaud

Vezina-Gagnon

Henry

Porter-Vignola

(2015). Effectiveness of a sexual assault awareness and prevention workshop for youth: A 3-month follow up pragmatic cluster randomisation study. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 24(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjhs.2626

22.

Dake

A. J.

Price

H. J.

Murnan

(2003). Evaluation of a child abuse prevention curriculum of third grade students: Assessment of knowledge and efficacy expectations. Journal of School Health, 73(2), 76–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2003.tb03576.x

23.

del Campo Sánchez

Sánchez

F. L.

(2006). Evaluación de un programa de prevención de abusos sexuales a menores en Educación Primaria. Psicothema, 18(1), 1–8. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=72718101

24.

Devries

Knight

Allen

Parkes

Kyegombe

Naker

(2017). Does the Good Schools Toolkit reduce physical, sexual and emotional violence, and injuries in girls and boys equally? Prevention Science, 62(7), 839–853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-017-0775-3

25.

Devries

Knight

Child

Mirembe

Nakuti

Jones

Naker

(2015). The good school toolkit for reducing physical violence from school staff to primary school students: A cluster-randomised controlled trial in Uganda. The Lancet Global Health, 385(7), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00060-1

26.

Devries

Kuper

Knight

Allen

Kyegombe

Bank

L. M.

Naker

(2018). Reducing physical violence toward primary school students with disabilities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(3), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2017.09.004

27.

Dhooper

S. S.

Schneider

P. L.

(1995). Evaluation of a school-based child abuse prevention program. Research on Social Work Practice, 5(1), 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159500500104

28.

Dryden

E. M.

Desmarais

Arsenault

(2014). Effectiveness of the IMPACT: Ability program to improve safety and self-advocacy skills in high school students with disabilities. Journal of School Health, 84(12), 793–801. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12211

29.

Edwards

Banyard

Sessarego

Waterman

Mitchell

Chang

(2019). Evaluation of a bystander-focussed interpersonal violence prevention program with High school students. Prevention Science, 20(4), 488–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-019-01000-w

30.

Elfreich

M. R.

Stevenson

M. C.

Sisson

Winstead

A. P.

Parmenter

K. M.

(2020). Sexual abuse disclosure mediates the effect of an abuse prevention program on substantiation. Child Maltreatment, 25(2), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559519874884

31.

Fang

Brown

D. S.

Florence

C. S.

Mercy

J. A.

(2012). The economic burden of child maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006

32.

Fang

Corso

P. S.

(2007). Child maltreatment, youth violence, and intimate partner violence developmental relationships. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(4), 281–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.06.003

33.

Feldmann

Storck

Pfeffer

(2018). ReSi: Evaluation eines programms zur kompetenzforderung und pravention sexuellen missbrauchs im kindergarten. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 67(8), 720–735. https://doi.org/10.13109/prkk.2018.67.8.720

34.

Felitti

V. J.

Anda

R. F.

Nordenberg

WIlliamson

D. F.

Spitz

A. M.

Edwards

Marks

J. S.

(1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The adverse childhood experiences (ACE) study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8

35.

Finch

Featherston

Chakraborty

Bjørndal

Mildon

Albers

Shlonsky

(2021). Interventions that address institutional child maltreatment: An evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 17(1), e1139. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1139

36.

Finkelhor

Vanderminden

Turner

Hamby

Shattuck

(2014). Child maltreatment rates assessed in a national household survey of caregivers and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 38(9), 1421–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2014.05.005

37.

Fryer

G. E.

Jr Kraizer

S. K.

Miyoshi

(1987). Measuring actual reduction of risk to child abuse: A new approach. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(2), 173–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(87)90055-X

38.

German Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (2020). Inquiry into child sexual abuse in Germany: Report. German Government https://www.aufarbeitungskommission.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Independent-Inquiry-Child-Sexual-Abuse-Germany.pdf

39.

Greger

H. K.

Myhre

A. K.

Lydersen

Jozefiak

(2015). Previous maltreatment and present mental health in a high-risk adolescent population. Child Abuse & Neglect, 45, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.05.003

40.

Grendel

M. A.

(1991). Cognitive and emotional effects of brief child sexual abuse prevention program for first graders [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. University of Cincinnati.

41.

Gushwa

Bernier

Robinson

(2018). Advancing child sexual abuse prevention in school: An exploration of the effectiveness of the enough online training program for K-12 teachers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 28(2), 144–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2018.1477000

42.

Harvey

Forehand

Brown

Holmes

(1988). The prevention of sexual abuse: Examination of the effectiveness of a program with kindergarten-age children. Behavior Therapy, 19(3), 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(88)80014-5

43.

Hazzard

Webb

Kleemeier

Angert

Pohl

(1991). Child sexual abuse prevention: Evaluation and one year follow up. Child Abuse & Neglect, 15(1-2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(91)90097-W

44.

Hebert

Lavoie

Piche

Poitras

(2001). Proximate effects of a child sexual abuse prevention program in elementary school children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(4), 505–522. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00223-X

45.

Heidotting

(1996). A meta-analytic evaluation of school-based sexual abuse and personal safety prevention programs for children. [Unpublished Master's thesis]. University of Cincinnati.

46.

Hermenau

Goessmann

Rygaard

N. P.

Landolt

M. A.

Hecker

(2017). Fostering child development by improving care quality: A systematic review of the effectiveness of structural interventions and caregiver training in institutional care. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 18(5), 544–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016641918

47.

Hillenbrand-Gunn

T. L.

Heppner

M. J.

Mauch

P. A.

Park

H. J.

(2010). Men as allies: The efficacy of a high school rape prevention intervention. Journal of Counselling & Development, 88(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6678.2010.tb00149.x

48.

Humphreys

Gleason

M. M.

Drury

S. S.

Miron

Nelson

C. A.

Fox

N. A.

Zeanah

C. H.

(2015). Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: Follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry, 2(7), 625–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00095-4

49.

Jaffee

S. R.

Ambler

Merrick

Goldman-Mellor

Odgers

C. L.

Fisher

H. L.

Arseneault

(2018). Childhood maltreatment predicts poor economic and educational outcomes in the transition to adulthood. American Journal of Public Health, 108(9), 1142–1147. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304587

50.

Jin

Chen

Jiang

(2017). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention education program for school-age children in China: A comparison of teachers and parent as instructors. Health Education Research, 32(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyx047

51.

Johnson

Guthrie

Smyke

Koga

Fox

Zeanah

Nelson

(2010). Growth and associations between auxology, caregiving environment, and cognition in socially deprived Romanian children randomized to foster vs ongoing institutional care. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 164(6), 507–516. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.56

52.

Kenny

M. C.

Wurtle

S. K.

Alonso

(2012). Evaluation of a personal safety program with Latino pre-schoolers. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21(4), 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.675426

53.

Knight

Allen

Mirembe

Nakuti

Namy

Child

Devries

(2018). Implementation of the good school toolkit in Uganda: A quantitative process evaluation of a successful violence prevention program. BMC Public Health, 18(608), 608. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5462-1

54.

Kolko

D. J.

Moser

J. T.

Hughes

(1989). Classroom training in sexual victimization awareness and prevention skills: An extension of the Red Flag/Green Flag people program. Journal of Family Violence, 4(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985655

55.

Kolko

D. J.

Moser

J. T.

Litz

Hughes

(1987). Promoting awareness and prevention of child sexual victimization using the Red Flag/Green Flag program: An evaluation with follow-up. Journal of Family Violence, 2(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976368

56.

Kornør

John

Brynhildur

Biedilæ

Albers

(2017). Interventions for child abuse and neglect: Title registration for an evidence and gap map. Campbell Collaboration https://campbellcollaboration.org/media/k2/attachments/SWCG_Kornor_EGM_Title.pdf

57.

Krahe

Knappert

(2009). A group-randomized evaluation of a theatre-based sexual abuse prevention programme for primary school children in Germany. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 19(4), 321–329. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.1009

58.

Kraizer

(1991). The safe child program for the prevention of child abuse: Development and evaluation of a school-based curriculum [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. The Union Institute.

59.

Kraizer

K. S.

Fryer

G. E.

Miller

(1988). Programming for preventing sexual abuse and abduction: What does it mean when it works? Child Welfare, 67(1), 69–78. https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/45390212

60.

Lemaigre

Taylor

E. P.

Gittoes

(2017). Barriers and facilitators to disclosing sexual abuse in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 70, 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.05.009

61.

Letourneau

E. J.

Brown

D. S.

Fang

Hassan

Mercy

J. A.

(2018). The economic burden of child sexual abuse in the United States. Child Abuse & Neglect, 79, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.02.020

62.

Littell

(2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products [campbell methods series: discussion paper 5]. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1

63.

Littell

J. H.

Shlonsky

(2010). Toward evidence-informed policy and practice in child welfare. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(6), 723–725. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731509347886

64.

Lueger-Schuster

Knefel

Gluck

T. M.

Jagsch

Kantor

Weindl

(2018). Child abuse and neglect in institutional settings, cumulative lifetime traumatization, and psychopathological long-term correlates in adult survivors: The Vienna institutional abuse study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 488–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.12.009

65.

MacIntyre

Carr

(1999a). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the stay safe primary prevention programme for child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1307–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00092-7

66.

MacIntyre

Carr

(1999b). Helping children to the other side of silence: A study of the impact of the stay safe programme on Irish children's disclosures of sexual victimization. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1327–1340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00097-6

67.

Maniglio

(2009). The impact of child sexual abuse on health: A systematic review of reviews. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(7), 647–657. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.08.003

68.

McElearney

Brennan-Wilson

Murphy

Stephenson

Bunting

(2018). Cluster randomised controlled trial of ‘while school' child maltreatment prevention programme in primary schools in Northern Ireland: Study protocol for keeping safe. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 590. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5492-8

69.

McKibbin

(2017). Preventing harmful sexual behaviour and child sexual exploitation for children & young people living in residential care: A scoping review in the Australian context. Children and Youth Services, 82, 373–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.10.008

70.

Merrill

Knight

Namy

Allen

Naker

Devries

(2018). Effects of a violence prevention intervention in schools and surrounding communities: Secondary analysis of a cluster randomised-controlled trial in Uganda. Child Abuse & Neglect, 84, 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.06.007

71.

Moody

Cannings-John

Hood

Kemp

Robling

(2018). Establishing the international prevalence of self-reported child maltreatment: A systematic review by maltreatment type and gender. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1164. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6044-y

72.

Moore

S. E.

Scott

J. G.

Ferrari

A. J.

Mills

Dunneh

M. P.

Erskine

H. E.

Norman

R. E.

(2015). Burden attributable to child maltreatment in Australia. Child Abuse & Neglect, 48, 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-6044-y

73.

Neherta

Machmud

Damayanti

Afrizal (2017). The difference in intervention of sexual abuse prevention by two variance professions on primary school children in Padang. Indian Journal of Community Health, 29(1), 118–122. https://doi.org/10.47203/ijch.2017.v29i01.018

74.

Nkuba

Hermenau

Goessmann

Hecker

(2018). Reducing violence by teacher using the preventative intervention interaction competencies with children for teachers (ICC-T): A cluster randomized controlled trial at public secondary schools in Tanzania. Plos One, 13(8), e0201362. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201362

75.

Oldfield

Hays

B. J.

Megel

M. E.

(1996). Evaluation of the effectiveness of project TRUST: An elementary school-based victimization prevention strategy. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20(9), 821–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(96)00070-1

76.

Parenting Research Centre (2015). Implementation of recommendations arising from previous inquiries of relevance to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.parentingrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Implementation-of-recommendations-previous-enquiries-v2.pdf

77.

Pennsylvania Attorney General (2018). Grand jury investigation into child sex abuse by Catholic priests: Report. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/report/

78.

Pitts

(2015). Child sexual abuse prevention programs for pre-schoolers: A synthesis of current evidence. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/Research%20Report%20-%20Child%20sexual%20abuse%20prevention%20programs%20for%20pre-schoolers%20A%20synthesis%20of%20current%20evidence%20-%20Prevention.pdf

79.

Proctor

Silmere

Raghavan

Hoymand

Aarons

Bunger

Hensley

(2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7

80.

Proeve

Malvaso

Delfabbro

(2016). Evidence and frameworks for understanding perpetrators of institutional child sexual abuse. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321242456_Evidence_and_Frameworks_for_Understanding_Perpetrators_of_Institutional_Child_Sexual_Abuse

81.

Pulido

Dauber

Tully

Hamilton

Smith

Freeman

(2015). Knowledge gains following a child sexual abuse prevention program among urban students: A cluster-randomized evaluation. American Journal of Public Health, 105(7), 1344–1350. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302594

82.

Pundir

Saran

White

Adona

Subramanian

(2019). PROTOCOL: The effectiveness of interventions for reducing violence against children: An evidence and gap map in low-and-middle-income countries. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1040

83.

Quadara

Nagy

Higgins

Siegel

(2015). Conceptualising the prevention of child sexual abuse: Final report . (Research report no. 33). Australian Institute of Family Studies https://aifs.gov.au/publications/conceptualising-prevention-child-sexual-abuse

84.

R Core Team (2019). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

85.

Radford

Foster

R. H.

Barter

Stanley

(2017). Rapid Evidence Assessment: What can be learned from other jurisdictions about preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. UK Government, Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/1370/view/learning-from-best-practice-overseas-rapid-evidence-assessment-full-report-english.pdf

86.

Ratto

Bogat

(1990). An evaluation of a preschool curriculum to educate children in the prevention of sexual abuse. Journal of Community Psychology, 18(3), 289–297. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6629(199007)18:3<289::AID-JCOP2290180310>3.0.CO;2-1

87.

Rheingold

Zajac

Chapman

Patton

de Arellano

Saunders

Kilpatrick

(2014). Child sexual abuse prevention training for childcare professionals: An independent multi-site randomized controlled trial of stewards of children. Prevention Science, 16(3), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-014-0499-6

88.

Ricardo

Eads

Barker

(2011). Engaging boys and young men in the prevention of sexual violence: A systematic and global review of evaluated intervention. Sexual Violence Research Initiative, and Promundo. https://www.svri.org/sites/default/files/attachments/2016-03-21/menandboys.pdf

89.

Saran

Albright

Adona

White

(2018). Mega-map of systematic reviews and evidence and gap maps on the effectiveness of interventions to improve child welfare in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1116. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1116

90.

Saslawsky

D. A.

Wurtele

S. K.

(1986). Educating children about sexual abuse: Implications for pediatric intervention and possible prevention. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11(2), 235–245. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/11.2.235

91.

Shea

B. J.

Reeves

B. C.

Wells

Thuku

Hamel

Moran

Kristjansson

(2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 21(358), j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008

92.

Sherr

Roberts

J. K.

Gandhi

(2017). Child violence experiences in institutionalised/orphanage care. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(1), 31–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2016.1271951

93.

Shlonsky

Albers

Paterson

(2017). Rapid evidence review on the availability, modality and effectiveness of psychosocial support services for child and adult victims and survivors of child sexual abuse. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/research_report_-_rapid_evidence_review_on_the_availability_modality_effectiveness_of_psychosocial_-_treatment.pdf

94.

Smyke

Zeanah

Fox

Nelson

Guthrie

(2010). Placement in foster care enhances quality of attachment among young institutionalized children. Child Development, 81(1), 212–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01390.x

95.

Snilstveit

Vojtkova

Bhavsar

Gaarder

(2013). Evidence gap maps - A tool for promoting evidence-informed policy and prioritizing future re- search . (Research working paper no. WPS6725). World Bank Group https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2367606

96.

Snyder

C. M.

(1986). An evaluation of the “Good Secrets, Bad Secrets” sexual assaults prevention program [Unpublished Doctoral dissertation]. United States International University.

97.

South

Shlonsky

Mildon

(2014). Scoping review: Evaluations of out-of-home care practice elements that aim to prevent sexual abuse. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.parentingrc.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Scoping-review_Evaluations-of-pre-employment-screening-practices-to-prevent-csa.pdf

98.

South

Shlonsky

Mildon

(2015). Scoping review: Evaluations of pre-employment screening practices for child-related work that aim to prevent child sexual abuse. Australian Government, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/research_report_-_evaluations_of_pre-employment_screening_practices_and_supplementary_materials_-_prevention.pdf

99.

Ssenyonga

Hermenau

Nkuba

Hecker

(2018). Reducing violence against children by implementing the preventative intervention Interaction Competencies with children for teachers (ICC-T): Study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial in Southwestern Uganda. BMC, 19(1), 435. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-018-2827-9

100.

Sterne

J. A.

Savović

Page

M. J.

Elbers

R. G.

Blencowe

N. S.

Boutron

Higgins

J. P. T.

(2019). RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 366, l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898

101.

Stoltenborgh

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

ALink

R. A. L.

Van

I. J.

(2015). The prevalence of child maltreatment across the globe: Review of a series of meta-analyses. Child Abuse Review, 24(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2353

102.

Straus

Tetroe

Graham

I. D.

(2013). Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. John Wiley & Sons.

103.

Sullivan

P. M.

Scalan

J. M.

Brookhouser

P. E.

Schulte

L. E.

Knutson

J. F.

(1992). The effects of psychotherapy on behaviour problems of sexually abused deaf children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(2), 297–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)90036-Q

104.

Taal

Edelaar

(1997). Positive and negative effects of a child sexual abuse prevention program. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(4), 399–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(96)00179-2

105.

Taylor

Stein

Burden

(2010). The effects of gender violence/harassment prevention programming in middle schools: A randomized experimental evaluation. Violence and Victims, 25(2), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.25.2.202

106.

Teicher

M. H.

Samson

J. A.

(2016). Annual research review: Enduring neurobiological effects of childhood abuse and neglect. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57(3), 241–266. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12507

107.

Telljohann

S. K.

Everett

S. A.

Price

J. H.

(1997). Evaluation of a third grade sexual abuse curriculum. Journal of School Health, 67(4), 149–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.1997.tb03436.x

108.

Timmerman

M. C.

Schreuder

P. R.

(2014). Sexual abuse of children and youth in residential care: An international review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(6), 715–720. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2014.09.001

109.

Topping

K. J.

Barron

I. G.

(2009). School-based child sexual abuse prevention programs: A review of effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 431–463. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308325582

110.

Troller-Renfree

McDermott

J. M.

Nelson

C. A.

Zeanah

C. H.

Fox

N. A.

(2015). The effects of early foster care intervention on attention biases in previously institutionalised children in Romania. Developmental Science, 18(5), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1111/desc.12261

111.

Tutty

M. L.

(1997). Child sexual abuse prevention programs: Evaluating who do you tell. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(9), 869–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00048-3

112.

United Kingdom Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (2019). Sexual abuse of children in custodial institutions: 2009-2017 – final report. United Kingdom Government. https://www.iicsa.org.uk/key-documents/9560/view/sexual-abuse-children-custodial-institutions-investigation-report-february-2019.pdf

113.

van Lieshout

Mevissen

E. F. F.

van Breukelen

Jonker

Ruiter

R. A. C.

(2019). Make a move: A comprehensive effect evaluation of sexual harassment prevention program in Dutch residential youth care. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(9), 1772–1800. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516654932

114.

Veritas Health Innovation (2020). Covidence Systematic Review Software [Computer program]. https://www.covidence.org

115.

Wade

Fox

A. N.

Zeanah

C. H.

Nelson

C. A.

(2018). Long-term effects of institutional rearing, foster care, and brain activity on memory and executive functioning. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116(2), 1808–1813. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1809145116

116.

Walsh

Zwi

Woolfenden

Shlonksy

(2015). A school-based education programme for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, CD004380. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004380.pub3

117.

Warden

Moran

Gillies

Mayes

Macleod

(1997). An evaluation of a children's safety training program. Education Psychology, 17(4), 433–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170405

118.

Weatherley

Hajar

A. B. S.

Noralina

Metilda

Preusser

Yong

(2012). Evaluation of a school-based sexual abuse prevention curriculum in Malaysia. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.09.009

119.

White

Albers

Gaarder

Kornør

Littell

Marshall

Welch

(2020). Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(4), e1125. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1125

120.

White

Shanley

Zimmer-Gembeck

Walsh

Hawkins

Lines

Webb

(2018). Promoting young children's interpersonal safety knowledge, intentions, confidence and protective behaviour skills: Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 82, 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.05.024

121.

Wolfe

D. A.

MacPherson

Blount

Wolfe

V. V.

(1986). Evaluation of a brief intervention for education school children in awareness of physical and sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 10(1), 85–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(86)90036-0

122.

World Health Organization (2014). Global status report on violence prevention. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564793

123.

Wurtele

S. K.

(2012). Preventing the sexual exploitation of minors in youth-serving organizations. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(12), 2442–2453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.09.009

124.

Wurtele

S. K.

Gillispie

E. L.

Currier

L. L.

Franklin

C. F.

(1992a). A comparison of teachers vs parents as instructors of a personal safety program for preschoolers. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)90013-H

125.

Wurtele

S. K.

Kast

C. L.

Melzer

M. A.

(1992b). Sexual abuse prevention education for young children: A comparison of teachers and parents as instructors. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(6), 865–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)90088-9

126.

Wurtele

S. K.

Saslawsky

D. A.

Miller

C. L.

Marrs

S. R.

Britcher

J. C.

(1986). Teacher personal safety skills for potential prevention of sexual abuse: A comparison of treatments. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 688–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.54.5.688

127.

Zhang

Chen

Feng

Liu

Zhao

(2013). Evaluation of a sexual abuse prevention education for Chinese preschoolers. Research on Social Work Practice, 24(4), 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731513510409

128.

Zwi

K. J.

Woolfenden

S. R.

Wheeler

D. M.

O'Brien

T. A.

Trait

Williams

K. W.

(2008). Cohrane review: School-based education programmes for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal, 3(3), 603–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/ebch.264