Engaging Parents in Child-Focused Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education Strategies: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Parents are their children’s first teachers and there are long-standing calls for their involvement in child sexual abuse prevention. In this rapid systematic review, we asked the following questions: what rationales are used to justify parental involvement in child-focused child sexual abuse (CSA) prevention programs? what approaches are used for parental engagement in child-focused CSA prevention programs? and what are the facilitators and barriers to parental involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs? We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, ERIC, Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus, and SocINDEX in May 2021. A total of 57 papers met our inclusion criteria, comprised of 50 empirical studies, and 7 program descriptions. Rationales for parental involvement included monitoring and shaping parental attitudes toward CSA program delivery in schools; reinforcing children’s learning at home; promoting parent–child communication about CSA prevention; building parent capacity to respond to child disclosures; and supporting program delivery for preschoolers. Types of parental involvement included the following: communication, learning at home, volunteering, decision-making, and collaboration with the community. Barriers to parent involvement included ineffective program engagement modalities, and parental fears and misconceptions.

Keywords

child sexual abuse child sexual assault primary prevention school-based prevention parent involvement parent engagement

Introduction

Child sexual abuse (CSA) is a serious ongoing concern for communities globally affecting approximately 20% to 25% of women and 8% to 10% of men worldwide (Barth et al., 2013; Pereda et al., 2009). High prevalence is found in recent research. For example, a synthesis of CSA prevalence in five Nordic countries showed wide rates of 3% to 23% for boys and 11% to 36% for girls (Kloppen et al., 2016). From Japan, a synthesis of eight studies found rates of 1% to 64% for girls and 0% to 44% for boys (Tanaka et al., 2017), and India across 16 studies found rates of 4% to 41% for girls and 4% to 57% of boys (Choudhry et al., 2018). Data from perhaps the most recent prevalence study, conducted in Australia, found rates of 37.3% for women, 18.8% for men, and 52% for people identifying as gender diverse (Higgins et al., 2024; Mathews et al., 2023).

Protecting children from CSA is complex and multifaceted, with solutions typically requiring several interconnected and overlapping approaches. These include adopting a public health approach with coordinated primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention efforts (e.g., Letourneau, Eaton, et al., 2014; Higgins & Russell 2024; Russell & Higgins, 2024), implementing evidence-informed child-safe standards detailing principles and practices for preventing and responding to child sexual abuse and exploitation (e.g., Australian Human Rights Commission, 2018; Keeping Children Safe, 2014; NSPCC, 2017; Saul & Audage, 2007), and utilizing situational crime prevention in which opportunities for harm to children, particularly in institutions, are reduced via deterrence methods (e.g., Firmin, 2020; Higgins & Morley, 2018; Smallbone et al., 2013). These approaches reinforce the need for prevention efforts to recruit, engage, and mobilize multiple members of children’s social ecology. In this review, we address a key group: children’s parents/caregivers.

Parents and Child Sexual Abuse Prevention

Despite barriers regarding the inclusion of parents (Livingston et al., 2020, there is broad consensus on the important role of families and parents/caregivers (henceforth, “parents”) in CSA prevention (Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015; Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2018; Trew et al., 2021; Wurtele & Kenny, 2010, 2012; Xie et al., 2016). Parents are typically recruited into CSA prevention via two programmatic routes: (i) via programs in which parents are specifically targeted, also known as parent-led sexual abuse prevention (Rudolph & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2018) or parent-focused prevention (Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015) and (ii) via programs in which children are targeted and parents are engaged as adjuncts, also known as child-focused prevention (Sanderson, 2004).

Regarding the first category―parent-led or parent-focused CSA prevention―in recent research, randomized controlled trials and other rigorous evaluation methodologies have been utilized to investigate the efficacy of parent-focused CSA interventions. For example, in a cluster randomized controlled trial, Guastaferro, Felt, et al. (2020) evaluated the effects of Smart Parents—Safe and Healthy Kids, a single session (~60 minutes) behaviorally based CSA prevention module that was added to an established parenting intervention known as Parents as Teachers. The module, covering topics such as child sexual development, parent–child communication, safety strategies, and parental monitoring techniques, used role-play and other structured experiences designed to increase awareness and shape behaviors. The intervention was successful in increasing parents’ knowledge of and readiness to apply behaviorally specific protective strategies. In another randomized controlled trial, Nickerson et al. (2018) evaluated the effects of a series of four short videos from the Second Step® Child Protection Unit. The videos acknowledge parents’ discomfort, depict parents initiating discussions with their children, and model ways of responding in the event of child disclosures. The intervention was successful in increasing parents’ knowledge, motivation, and frequency of communication with their children about personal safety and CSA prevention.

The theory of change for these parent-led or parent-focused interventions is based on the centrality of protective parenting in CSA prevention embracing the idea that through active and involved parenting enacted via behavioral strategies such as monitoring, supervision, caution around care delegation, checking in with children, and the use of warmth and open communication (Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2023b). These interventions are not the subject of this review; however, we will return to this salient point about their theories of change, later in this review.

Regarding the second category―child-focused CSA prevention with parents as adjuncts―the research has a much longer history. By adjuncts, we mean they are added as supplementary rather than essential components. Child-focused CSA prevention interventions are conducted in preschools, schools, and other youth-serving organizations. Interventions are typically delivered by trained facilitators to groups of children (e.g., in classrooms) and comprise a sequence of lessons with content developmentally sequenced for specific age groups (Lu et al., 2023; Walsh et al., 2015). In well-evaluated interventions (i.e., those meeting thresholds for inclusion in high-quality systematic reviews), young children in the early years learn to recognize safe and unsafe situations, name private body parts, begin to understand the concept of body autonomy (i.e., my body belongs to me), and identify adults who can help. As children progress through middle school, they learn about child sexual abuse and grooming, safe and unsafe touching, secret-keeping, that children are not to blame when adults make poor choices, and that offenders may be someone known or unknown. How to seek help and from whom is also a key focus (Walsh et al., 2015). In high school, CSA prevention programs begin to overlap with dating and relationship violence prevention programs or peer victimization prevention programs, and children learn about respectful and healthy relationships, the role of gender norms and bystander behaviors, and making and receiving disclosures (Cohen & Katz, 2021; De La Rue et al., 2017).

The theory of change for these child-focused interventions with parents as adjuncts is that by involving parents through a variety of mechanisms, they may be recruited to support program delivery, reinforce program messages at home, discuss CSA and its prevention with their children, and respond appropriately to disclosures, thereby enhancing prevention effects for children (Babatsikos, 2010; Wurtele & Kenny, 2010).

Previous Reviews

We are aware of a small number of previous narrative reviews on the topic of parents and CSA prevention. Babatsikos (2010) reviewed studies that had collected data on parents’ CSA knowledge, attitudes, and prevention practices. Wurtele and Kenny (2010) reviewed studies in which barriers and facilitators to parents’ participation in CSA prevention programs had been investigated. Hunt and Walsh (2011) reviewed studies of parents’ views about school-based child sexual abuse prevention. These reviews (Babatiskos, 2010; Hunt & Walsh, 2011; Wurtele & Kenny, 2010) differ from our current review in that they reviewed research centered around parent-focused interventions. Our review instead focuses on the inclusion of parents in child-focused interventions or programs.

Most recently, in a rigorous systematic review, Rudolph et al. (2024) synthesized the evidence on parental involvement in CSA prevention programs from 24 studies in which parents or primary caregivers were the primary program targets. It differs from this current review in having a narrower precision-oriented remit, focusing squarely on program outcomes and effectiveness (parental knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy, and behavioral intentions). This review can serve as a companion piece and extension to Rudolph et al.’s (2023a) review by offering a classification of parental involvement using an existing evidence-based typology to shed light on parent participatory practices likely to result in meaningful outcomes.

Aim and Research Questions

Our review aimed to investigate parent involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs. In this review, “parents” refers to parental figures, caregivers, and guardians who are responsible for the care of a child or children including but not limited to biological relationships. We defined child-focused CSA prevention programs as interventions presented to groups of children and young people aged under 18 years, in which contents and methods had been tailored for specific age groups and cognition levels.

We will summarize how parents have been involved in child-focused CSA prevention education to provide program developers and facilitators with information that might assist them to more purposefully engage parents in CSA prevention education delivered in preschools, schools, and other child and youth-serving organizations.

Research questions that guided our review were as follows:

What rationales are used to justify parental involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs?

What approaches are used for parental engagement in child-focused CSA prevention programs?

What are the facilitators and barriers to parental involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs?

Method

To address the research questions, we conducted a rapid systematic review following the rapid review guidelines of Tricco et al. (2017), and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Preferred Reporting (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021).¹ To formulate a narrative synthesis of findings, we used the Synthesis without Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines (Campbell et al., 2020) and Popay et al. (2006).

Search Strategy

We searched seven databases (CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ERIC [Ebsco], Medline Complete [Ebsco], PsycInfo [Ebsco], Scopus, and SocINDEX) in May 2021 for peer-reviewed papers relating to parent involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs. We restricted keyword searches to record titles and abstracts and applied relevant subject headings for each database. We did not apply date or language restrictions. The search strategy is shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Keywords Used in Systematic Search Strategy with Medline Subject Headings.

Search field	Population/Age range	Parents	Abuse	Program	Prevention
Keyword Title OR Abstract	Child* OR student* OR boy* OR girl* OR pupil* OR “preschool* age” OR “kinder age” OR “nursery age” OR “pre k age” OR “elementary age” OR “primary school age” OR “young child” OR “early child” OR “early year” OR “daycare age” OR “day care age” OR “child care age” OR “childcare age” OR adolescent* OR youth OR “young people” OR “young person” OR teen* OR tween* OR toddler* OR “pre teen” OR preschool	Parent* OR guardian* OR mother* OR father* OR grandparent* OR family* OR carer OR caregiver* OR foster	Groom* OR “sex* abuse”	Program* OR curricul* OR education OR psychoeducat* OR approach* OR syllab* OR course* OR train* OR interven* OR method* OR strateg* OR engagement* OR skill* OR knowledge* OR learn*	Prevent* OR protect* OR supervise* OR monitor*
Medline MeSH	MH Child OR MH Students OR MH Child, Preschool OR MH Adolescent OR, ZG adolescent: 13–18 years OR ZG child, preschool: 2–5 years OR ZG child: 6–12 years	MH Parents OR MH Single Parent OR MH Single-Parent Family OR MH Legal Guardians OR MH Mothers OR MH Fathers OR MH Grandparents OR MH Family OR MH Caregivers OR MH Foster Home Care	MH sex offenses	MH Program Development OR MH Curriculum OR MH Education OR MH Teaching OR MH Knowledge OR MH Learning	N/A

We supplemented this systematic search with additional targeted searches. Having previously conducted a review of effective delivery methods in CSA prevention programs (Trew et al., 2021), we were aware of several reviews on the efficacy of CSA prevention programs (Brassard & Fiorvaanti, 2015; Davis & Gidycz, 2000; Del Campo & Fávero, 2019; Fryda & Hulme, 2015; Kenny et al., 2008; Lynas & Hawkins, 2017; Rispens et al., 1997; Topping & Barron, 2009; Walsh et al., 2015). Together, these reviews included 268 studies. After removing duplicates (n = 104), we retrieved a total of 128 studies. We searched the text of each study (using Ctrl + F) for the following terms: parent, carer, guardian, mother, and father. If any one of these terms were found, we screened the full text of the paper against our review’s inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using this process, we identified 19 further papers (as shown in Figure 1).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flowchart.

Eligibility Criteria

After removing duplicates, we used Rayyan (Qatar Computing Research Institute; QCRI) (Ouzzani et al., 2016) to screen records from the systematic search against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors 1 and 2 double-blind screened all articles and worked together to resolve conflicts. Unresolved conflicts were referred to Author 5. We included articles if they met the following three criteria:

Focus: A child-focused CSA prevention program or intervention in which children or young people (i.e., aged under 18 years) were the target audience and parents were adjuncts.

Intervention: Primary prevention program (i.e., aiming to prevent CSA before it occurs rather than provide treatment or address effects after CSA has occurred).

Participants: the intervention involved parents in a meaningful way (i.e., more than simply providing consent for their child to take part in a study).

We excluded papers in which the participants in the intervention were not children (i.e., were aged 18 or above) and where data were not disaggregated (i.e., so that those aged under 18 could be clearly distinguished). We excluded papers in which interventions targeted at-risk groups (i.e., secondary prevention initiatives), children and young people engaged in harmful sexual behavior, and programs for victims/survivors (i.e., tertiary prevention initiatives). We excluded papers in which the sole reason for parent involvement was to provide consent for their children’s participation in research.

Screening and Selection

Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram. Our systematic searches yielded 7,061 records of which 2,897 were duplicates. After screening, 38 papers remained. An additional targeted search strategy identified a further 19 papers. Together, we had a total of 57 papers from which to extract data.

Data Extraction and Analysis

Data were extracted in a standardized format, using a MS Excel spreadsheet. Rationales for parent involvement were thematically coded in an inductive or “data-driven” process (Braun & Clarke, 2019) in which we coded text in each paper according to the way(s) in which authors had represented reasons for parent involvement. Themes were developed from codes. A similar process was used to analyze barriers and facilitators to parent involvement. Types of parental involvement were coded in a deductive or “theory-driven” approach against Epstein’s (2018) framework of six types of involvement, also known as the “school-family-community partnership model.” The most recent version of the typology was described by Epstein et al. (2018, pp. 19–21). It is a well-established model that has been incorporated into the USA’s No Child Left Behind—Public Law 107-110, 2002, SEC. 1118—and is based on decades of empirical research on parent educational engagement initiatives in schools.

Critical Appraisal

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI, 2020) critical appraisal tools to conduct a methodological quality assessment of the studies included. The JBI tools provide the convenience of a single location in which to source critical appraisal tools. However, the instruments required adaptation to suit a rapid systematic review of the type we were conducting which captured a wide range of included study designs.

In the absence of a JBI critical appraisal tool specifically for randomized controlled trials, these studies were appraised using the quasi-experimental tool. We noted the absence of criteria to assess blinding of outcome assessors, study attrition, and selective reporting. The JBI critical appraisal tool for analytical cross-sectional studies was used for cross-sectional studies. The JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative studies focused heavily on the philosophical basis for theory–methodology–methods congruence; however many of the included qualitative studies in our sample did not proclaim a theoretical standpoint (e.g., interpretivism, constructivism) as they were rather more agnostic about the nature of reality and knowledge in data and truth claims. As Williams et al. (2020) pointed out, within the range of tools available for appraising the methodological quality of qualitative studies, there is confusion about what should be assessed. For example, is it adherence to hallmarks of qualitative research like credibility, transferability, dependability, and confirmability; or adherence to reporting guidelines with indicators about the extent and transparency of reported study information? These points will be addressed in the review limitations.

Two authors independently assessed each study against the relevant study design checklist. Studies were rated against 8 or 9 appraisal criteria, depending on the checklist used with rate response options for each criterion recorded as yes, no, or unclear. A final score of between 0 (indicating low quality) and 1 (indicating high quality) was agreed only when two assessors rated 100% agreement on each item. A third author adjudicated on discrepancies.

Findings

Characteristics of Included Papers

A total of 57 papers met our inclusion criteria. These comprised 50 empirical studies, and 7 program descriptions. We included program descriptions because these provided detailed information on parent program involvement, oftentimes more detailed than could be provided in study reports. The 57 papers were published from 1984 to 2021, with most falling in the 1980s and 1990s (n = 41, 72%), indicating growth and then a decline in the volume of scholarship on CSA prevention programs involving parents. The majority of papers originated from the United States of America (USA) (n = 38, 65.5%), followed by Canada (n = 7, 12.1%), Ireland (n = 2, 3.4%), and New Zealand (n = 2, 3.4%). One paper was included from each of Argentina, China, Germany, Malaysia, the Netherlands, England, Iran, Israel, and Scotland (n = 1, 2%). In the presentation of findings that follow, we report analyses variously using papers (n = 57), studies (n = 50), and program descriptions (n = 7).

Of the 50 included studies, 27 (54%) used a pre- and post-test design with a control group and another 9 (18%) used a pre- and post-test design without a control group. Other study designs included six feasibility studies one of which was purely qualitative (12%), three cross-sectional studies (4%), and four other qualitative studies (6%). One paper was a study protocol (2%). Supplemental Table 1 shows study characteristics.

Study Quality

The quality of the 50 studies included in our review was highly varied. For the quasi-experimental tool, scores ranged between 0.2 and 1.0. For the cross-sectional tool, scores ranged from 0.25 to 1.0. For the qualitative tool, scores ranged between 0 and 0.6. We noted that studies with lower scores tended to have been published earlier (in the 1980s or 1990s), prior to the introduction of ever more stringent reporting guidelines. We did not perform quality appraisals on program descriptions or study protocols because program evaluations had not yet been completed. Quality appraisal scores are shown in Supplemental Table 1.

Programs

A wide range of programs were the subject of empirical studies or program descriptions involving parents including Body Safety Training program (n = 5) (e.g., Wurtele et al., 1992a), Red Flag/Green Flag (n = 4) (e.g., Kolko et al., 1987), Stay Safe program (n = 3) (e.g., MacIntyre & Carr, 1999), Talking About Touching (n = 2) (e.g., Madak & Berg, 1992), Keeping Ourselves Safe (n = 2) (e.g., Briggs & Hawkins, 1994), Kids Learning About Safety (n = 2) (e.g., Kenny, 2009b), Who do you Tell (n = 2) (e.g., Tutty, 1997), and others. Several programs were not named (n = 8). Program names are recorded in Supplemental Tables 1 and 2.

Parents

Of the included 50 studies, all provided for optional parent involvement. However, only 27 studies reported on any data collected from parents. Parent sample sizes ranged from 4 (Ruzicka et al., 2021) to 355 (Kolko et al., 1987); however, in many studies, precise parent participation numbers were not given. Small studies predominated. No study provided corresponding child and parent participation rates; therefore, it was not possible to establish the extent to which both child and parent(s) had been exposed to a program. Consistent with previous research, female rather than male caregivers were the predominant participants. The proportion of female caregivers, compared to any other caregiver, involved in CSA programs ranged between 62% and 100%, as shown in Supplemental Table 1. In three studies, participants were described as 100% mothers (Khoori et al., 2020; Ruzicka et al, 2021; Tremblay & Bégin, 2000). We identified no studies in which male caregivers comprised the larger proportion of participants. No studies reported any data on parents from diverse sexual orientations or gender identities.

The racial/ethnic backgrounds of participating parents were inconsistently reported. From the information given, 14 studies reported a majority White/Caucasian parents (Binder & McNeil, 1987; Briggs & Hawkins, 1996; Ko & Cosden, 2001; Liddell & Young, 1986; Poche et al., 1988; Pohl & Hazzard, 1990; Ratto & Bogat, 1990; Tutty, 1997, 2000, Wilson & Golub, 1993; Wurtele et al., 1992a, 1992b; Wurtele, 1993a, 1993b). Kenny’s (2009a, 2009b, 2010) studies conducted in Florida reported a majority Hispanic parents (71%–90%); Briggs and Hawkins (1994) New Zealand study reported one-third combined Maori and Pacifica parents; Kimberly’s (2020) study reported a majority African American parents (68%); and Weatherley et al.’s (2012) Malaysian study reported a majority Malay parents (74%). Two studies reported parent faith backgrounds as Jewish (Gesser-Edelsburg et al., 2017) and Catholic (Swan et al., 1985).

The timing of parent involvement in CSA prevention programs varied. Of the 57 included papers, parents were involved: at the same time as their child’s engagement (in 31 programs, 54.4%), before their child’s engagement (in 26, 45.6% of the programs), and after their child’s engagement (n = 10, 17.5%).² CSA prevention programs were delivered to children in narrow age range groups typically in single classes (e.g., preschoolers; Tutty, 1992), though some programs appeared to be offered in increments spanning multiple school year levels (e.g., Grades 1–5, Jin et al., 2017), and others where programs were offered to several but not all grades (e.g., Grades 1 and 3, Hébert et al., 2001). Of the 50 evaluation studies, 34 (68%) targeted primary (elementary) school children (aged ~5–12 years); 26 (45.6%) targeted preschool children (aged 0–4 years), and 6 (10.5%) targeted secondary (high) school young people (aged ~12–17 years). As will be described below, the timing of parent involvement, in some programs, was related to child age, with greater involvement expected and offered to parents with younger children.

Rationales for Parental Involvement

In the entire corpus of 57 papers (inclusive of empirical studies and program descriptions), we identified five main rationales used to justify parental involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs: (i) monitoring and shaping parental attitudes toward CSA program delivery in schools; (ii) reinforcing children’s learning at home; (iii) promoting parent–child communication about CSA prevention; (iv) building parent capacity to respond to child disclosures, and (v) supporting program delivery for preschoolers. These rationales provide clues to aspects of underlying program theories.

The first rationale for parent/caregiver involvement was to monitor and shape their attitudes toward the provision of CSA prevention programs. In this rationale, parent/caregiver attitudes were thought to exert an influence on schools’ CSA prevention program uptake. It followed, therefore, that to create a positive attitudinal climate among parents/caregivers, they should be involved early in the program implementation process. This typically entailed providing information to parents/caregivers and inviting them to information sessions to meet program facilitators, share their views, and have questions answered (e.g., Hébert et al., 2001; MacIntyre et al., 2000; Madak & Berg, 1992; Kolko et al., 1987; Taal & Edelaar, 1997), and obtaining parental consent for their child’s participation prior to program implementation (e.g., Pohl & Hazzard, 1990; Swan et al., 1985; Wurtele et al., 1986). In 36 of the 57 papers (63.2%) programs sought parental consent for children to take part in a child-focused CSA prevention program.

The second rationale for parent involvement was to reinforce children’s learning at home. In this rationale, it was proposed that parents played a significant role in the reinforcement of program knowledge and skills (e.g., Borkin & Frank, 1986; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999; Tutty, 1997; Wilson & Golub,1993). Parental support for their children’s learning was encouraged in various ways such as via the provision of guided resources, role-play scenarios, topics for open discussion, and direct instruction on concepts. The intention was for parents to enhance classroom learning via repetition, a proven effective learning strategy, and to supplement classroom learning by contextualizing prevention messages to suit their child’s developmental stage, cognitions, and family experiences.

The third rationale for parent involvement was to promote parent–child communication about CSA and its prevention. In this rationale, congruent with ideas promoted in the provision of positive parenting programs (e.g., Sanders et al., 2014) and comprehensive sexuality education (e.g., Goldfarb & Lieberman, 2021), parents can be encouraged to begin conversations with their children about CSA and its prevention and to sustain these conversations over time. It was thought that when parents become actively involved in the CSA prevention programs, their willingness and ability to talk with their children about personal safety-related topics will increase. In turn, this was thought to further reinforce and contextualize program messages to suit family needs (e.g., Kenny, 2010; Tremblay & Bégin, 2000).

The fourth rationale for parent involvement was to build parents’ capacity to respond appropriately to CSA disclosures. This was evident in a small number of papers (e.g., Hébert et al., 2001; Kenny, 2009a; Tremblay & Bégin, 2000; Weatherley et al., 2012). In this rationale, it was proposed that parents may need to be prepared to be recipients of children’s disclosures and to be able to handle these effectively.

The fifth rationale for parental involvement was evident in papers addressing CSA prevention education for preschoolers. In this rationale, parental involvement was deemed necessary by children’s young age and perceived vulnerability (e.g., Miltenberger et al., 1991: Tutty, 1992).

Types of Parental Involvement

We coded the strategies and methods used for parental engagement in child sexual abuse prevention programs into six categories using Epstein et al.’s (2018) framework for parent–school–community partnership. These were as follows: (i) parenting, (ii) communication, (iii) learning at home, (iv) volunteering, (v) decision-making, and (vi) collaboration with community as shown in Table 2. In the corpus of 57 papers (inclusive of empirical studies and program descriptions), we identified 83 instances in which parental engagement could be classified into one of these six engagement types. This is shown in Supplemental Table 1.

Table 2.

Epstein’s (2018) Framework of Six Types of Involvement.

Parenting	Communicating	Volunteering
Schools support families to create home environments appropriate for children to learn	Building effective ways to communicate from school-to-home and home-to-school about school programs and children’s progress as students	Caregivers are seen as the audience for student activities and educators, students and families organize together what is needed to support parents
Learning at home	Decision-making	Collaboration with community
Families actively support children to complete the schoolwork at home. Schools provide information and guidance to parents as to how to achieve this	Schools encourage and facilitate parents’ inclusion in school decisions as leaders or representatives	Resources, services, or providers are identified from the community and integrated into the education setting

Note. Sourced from Epstein (2018).

The most used parental engagement strategy was communication. The communication category involved stakeholders designing effective forms of communication between preschool/school and home (Epstein et al., 2018). Two forms of school-to-home communication strategies were observed: program-specific communications and awareness-raising communications. In the program-specific communication strategy, parents were invited to attend workshops or information evenings held at the preschool or school. These sessions could be led by school staff or by program facilitators who would introduce the CSA prevention program content and methods. This communication strategy was used by the largest proportion of programs (n = 23, 42.1%) and occurred either before the program had been delivered or while the program was underway. At these information-sharing events, parents were provided an opportunity to ask questions about the content and delivery method of the programs, with the understanding that parents would benefit from understanding how program providers taught sensitive topics to their children. The awareness-raising communication strategy identified in one-third of programs (n = 19, 33.3%) was to provide general CSA education sessions to parents about CSA. These sessions, either workshops or events, did not discuss specific program content but were designed to raise awareness and impart factual knowledge on CSA warning signs and indicators, risk and protective factors, ways of keeping children safe, and managing disclosures. Like the workshops or information evenings, these education sessions tended to be offered to parents before or during program delivery with children. In these communication sessions, materials such as videos, lectures, group discussions, and anonymous question times were used as engagement tools. In 10 (17.5%) of the programs, parents were provided with materials to take home with them and these included an overview of the proposed curriculum (Fisher, 1985; MacIntyre & Carr, 1999; MacIntyre et al., 2000; Meiksin et al., 2019; Tobin, 1985), practical resources to use with children at home via which to spark discussion such as posters or storybooks (Liddell & Young, 1986; Spungen et al., 1989) or booklet and pamphlets on child sexual safety (Johnson, 1987).

The second most used parental engagement strategy was learning at home. Over one-third of programs (n = 21, 36.8%) used a learning-from-home approach which could be further subdivided into two parental engagement sub-categories. The first learning from home sub-category delegated parents as teachers, to deliver the CSA prevention program with their child(ren) at home, with the preschool or school venue serving only as a conduit. This approach was utilized by 11 programs (19.3%). In this approach, parents were provided with preparation in the form of training and issued with a curriculum to guide program delivery. Parents were the sole program facilitators. Practical resources were offered to parents to support program delivery including workbooks with scripted scenarios or vignettes to prompt discussions with children. The second learning-from-home sub-category engaged parents only in homework support. This was evidenced in 10 programs (17.5%) in which parents provided supplementary support to complement a program delivered in preschool or school by teachers or program facilitators. In this approach, children completed the CSA prevention program at school and were encouraged to complete homework with parents to repeat and reinforce program concepts and messages. Homework tasks could be workbooks, story books, coloring books, sticker book activities, topic discussions, and guided role-plays.

The third most used parental engagement strategy was volunteering, where parents were offered an opportunity for program participation mirroring the way students were engaged. Participation was always optional (hence, “volunteering”). Ten programs (17.5%) included an element of parental volunteering. Of these, volunteering parents were taught the program side-by-side together with their children (n = 4, 7.0%), or in parallel separately without their children (n = 6, 10.5%). A side-by-side example is where a group of parent–child dyads watched a puppet show together (e.g., Borkin & Frank, 1986: Gesser-Edelsburg et al., 2017; Johnson, 1987). An in-parallel example is where a program was delivered to parents with adaptations for an adult audience (e.g., Currier & Wurtele, 1996; Kenny, 2010; Tremblay & Bégin, 2000).

The fourth most used parental engagement strategy was decision-making in which parents were co-opted, indirectly, to CSA program decisions. This approach was broadly evident in several programs (n = 9, 15.8%). Program providers sought parental input before program deployment, typically within information-sharing sessions. Parents were offered the chance to preview program content and methods in videos or plays designed for children and provided views on program feasibility and acceptability, thereby enabling program facilitators to tailor programs for specific audiences. After program completion, parents provided feedback on their children’s responses. For example, they commented on whether they noticed changes in the child’s demeanor or behavior. They provided their perceptions on changes in their child’s use of self-protective behaviors, and their willingness to discuss CSA and its prevention with their child.

The fifth and least used parental engagement strategy was collaboration with the community. This approach involves mobilizing and coordinating other agencies and referral services within the community to wrap support around program delivery. We observed a version of this in only one program that introduced parents to members of the community who could be contacted later for referral to CSA-related services (MacIntyre et al., 2000).

None of the studies directly addressed Epstein’s sixth involvement strategy, parenting. To be coded into this category, a CSA prevention program would need to assist families by equipping them with knowledge and skills for CSA prevention in the context of understanding child and adolescent development (particularly sexual development), and the program would partner with parents to create conditions for CSA prevention at home and in day-to-day family life. Therefore, to be coded into this category, CSA prevention programs would need to evidence at least some of the characteristics of parent-led or parent-focused interventions as noted in the literature review above (e.g., Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2022) with explicit teaching (of parents) how these strategies could also be used in other contexts to keep children safe. The absence of such papers in our corpus of 57 papers may signal a lack of connection or cross-over between the two programmatic routes by which parents are recruited into CSA prevention (i.e., parent-led programs, and child-focused programs), and this may represent lost opportunities to fully mobilize parents in prevention efforts.

Barriers to and Facilitators of Parental Involvement

In the corpus of 57 papers (inclusive of empirical studies and program descriptions), we identified several barriers and facilitators for parental involvement in CSA prevention programs.

Of the 57 papers, 26 papers mentioned barriers. The most frequently reported barrier was ineffective program engagement modalities that were incongruent with family routines, schedules, and time constraints within busy families (Kenny, 2009a; Kolko et al., 1989; Ruzicka et al., 2021; Shumow, 1988; Charlesworth & Rodwell, 1997; Wurtele et al., 1992b). One paper acknowledged that modalities for program involvement requiring attendance at meetings assumed that parents could devote significant time and energy to be involved in CSA prevention education. This made it inaccessible to some families, particularly isolated families and lower socioeconomic status families who could not afford to allocate time away from work or easily organize others to take over parenting duties (Briggs & Hawkins, 1994). One paper specifically nominated the absence of suitable childcare as a barrier to parental participation in evening information sessions (Kenny, 2009a). One paper reported extensive outreach that gained momentum over a 2-year period to engage parents of preschool-aged children in a social worker-delivered child personal safety program. Parental engagement efforts grew to involve parents in a planning committee, posting letters to each parent accompanied by program brochures, having posters displayed in daycare centers, scheduling evening parent sessions, sending reminder notices, offering complementary dinner and childcare for families attending, and having daycare staff present to demonstrate their support (Spungen et al., 1989).

A cluster of barriers related to fears and misconceptions appeared related to both child participation and parental involvement in programs. These included the taboo nature of the topic (Khoori et al., 2020), the belief that their children were not at risk (Wurtele et al., 1991), worry that programs would frighten children (Ratto & Bogat, 1990; Tutty, 2000; Wurtele et al., 1986), discomfort about children’s sexuality (Liddell & Young, 1986; Sprungen et al., 1989); concern that the program would trigger parents’ own painful memories (Wurtele et al., 1992a), parental distress about the topic (Spungen et al., 1989), and spousal opposition (Khoori et al., 2020). These fears and misconceptions were interpreted by researchers to explain reasons for and define different levels that may prevent parents from engaging comfortably in CSA prevention programs, and this seems particularly relevant to parents of preschool-aged children who may believe children are too young for this topic to be introduced.

Of the 57 papers, 22 papers mentioned one or more facilitators of parental involvement. Prior awareness of knowledge of CSA and its prevention potentially acted as a facilitator of parental engagement in programs. In evaluated programs in which baseline information was collected from children’s parents, it was hypothesized that parents with fair knowledge of the subject matter and/or were more informed on the topic prior to participating were more highly motivated toward program involvement (Briggs & Hawkins, 1994; Tremblay & Bégin, 2000; Tutty, 1997). Although programs were able to capitalize upon this motivation, there was never a description of how parents could be supported to further increase their knowledge and become involved in more meaningful ways.

A cluster of facilitators related to programs’ use of outreach, communications, and information provision. Most papers described providing parents with some kind of learning materials. With many of the papers reporting on programs evaluated in the 1980s and 1990s proceeding the ubiquity of electronic communications, materials were typically provided in hard copies. These materials explained program content and methods, reinforced program themes and messages, and provided suggested ways to approach conversations about CSA with children. Three papers emphasized the crucial nature of sensitive program adaptation, including outreach, for culturally and linguistically diverse parent groups (Kenny, 2009b, 2010; Tobin, 1985). Two studies, as described above, provided a suite of outreach activities, as a method for supporting and enabling parents’ program involvement (Jin et al., 2017; Spungen et al., 1989). Another included a follow-up phone call with parents to check in and monitor program compliance (Ratto & Bogat, 1990).

Discussion

Given the continuing high prevalence rates for CSA (e.g., Mathews et al., 2023), its serious effects (Hailes et al., 2019), and the associated economic burden (Letourneau, Brown, et al., 2018), there is a pressing need for effective prevention efforts to which all members of children’s social ecology are contributors. Parents are their children’s first educators (Walsh & Brandon, 2012) and there are long-standing calls for their involvement in CSA prevention efforts (Wurtele & Kenny, 2010). Decades of international research in a multitude of disciplinary fields, not least in education, has demonstrated that parental involvement matters: it translates to benefits for children (Kim, 2022).

Our aim with this review was to identify rationales, approaches, and barriers and facilitators to parental involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs. In addressing these aims, we classified parental involvement using an existing evidence-based typology (Epstein et al., 2018). We uncovered parent-participatory practices that have been used (so far) in child-focused CSA prevention programs. We have also uncovered practices that appear to be missing.

The inductive classification of five rationales for parents’ involvement provides clues for a more detailed, albeit untested, underlying theory of change for child-focused CSA prevention programs with parents as adjuncts. For example, beginning early in the preschool years, if parents have baseline CSA knowledge, hold positive attitudes toward CSA program delivery, and can reinforce children’s learning at home, this may result in better, more frequent, and earlier parent–child communication about CSA prevention, and supportive responses to child disclosures.

Missing from this discourse was parental gender equity. Aligning with previous research, we found that female, rather than male, caregivers were most often involved (or assumed to be involved) in programs and their involvement was more strongly observed (and expected) in CSA prevention programs with younger children of preschool age. This means that the burden of CSA prevention disproportionately falls on females. Although some previous studies have shown that CSA disclosures are most likely to be made to children’s mothers (e.g., Russell & Higgins, 2021; 2023), recent research synthesis on CSA disclosure pathways suggests that children, particularly girls, may first test the waters by disclosing to same-age peers before then disclosing to a parent, most likely their mother (rate range 24%–77%); however, a meaningful minority disclose to fathers (rate range 1.7%–20%) (Manay & Collin-Vezina, 2021). Given that disclosure is a “relational process” (Manay & Collin-Vezina, 2021, p. 16), involving considerations of trust, reliability, and help-seeking capability, more can be done to mobilize fathers’ involvement including in building their base-level knowledge of CSA, its characteristics, and prevention, and later shaping their attitudes positively toward program delivery. The complexity and sensitivity of fathers’ involvement should also be recognized since males, including but not limited to fathers, are the predominant CSA offenders (e.g., Mathews et al., 2023) and little is known about the outcomes of broad-based educational and awareness-raising interventions for CSA prevention with men. For example, secondary influences on offending trajectories and help seeking have not thoroughly been studied.

Deductive classification of parental involvement against Epstein’s (2018) six categories revealed that communication, learning at home, and volunteering were the most used approaches. Our findings show that parental involvement in CSA prevention programs was most often due to program provider efforts in communicating with parents. This was typically done via workshops or information sessions where prescribed information about CSA generally and/or program-specific information was given to parents. However, parents’ actual information needs did not seem to be considered and, arguably, should be. For example, if parents within a community are hesitant for children to learn about CSA, then it may be important to share program-specific information to alleviate concerns about what will be taught and how. However, if the goal of parental involvement is to support a whole-of-community response to CSA, then general CSA knowledge and behavioral skills training might be more important.

We found parent involvement in program decision-making and collaboration with the community were seldom used strategies. These findings are important for program developers and implementers as there appear to be many lost opportunities to mobilize parents in prevention efforts. For example, via parent representation on school boards and governing bodies who make decisions on resource allocation, or via parent councils, committees, and associations working collaboratively with school staff to select and schedule interventions. Our study did not uncover any programs that were specifically co-designed with parents; however, we are aware that at least one is underway (e.g., Malamsha et al., 2021) and program co-design with stakeholders and end-users is increasing in health research broadly (e.g., Slattery et al., 2020). However, guidance on program co-design with parents in the complex field of CSA prevention is lacking.

Epstein’s (2018) category of “parenting” was completely absent or, at the very least, invisible in study reports, highlighting the gap between child-focused and parent-focused prevention. To address this and create more opportunities to support parents in their parental roles, child-focused CSA prevention programs with parents as adjuncts can look toward excellent examples in parent-led and parent-focused CSA prevention programs, especially for behavioral skills training. This would involve incorporating direct teaching of protective parenting approaches such as monitoring, supervision, caution around care delegation, checking in with children, and warm and open communication (Guastaferro, Felt, et al., 2020; Mendelson & Letourneau, 2015; Rudolph et al., 2022).

We identified a dominant barrier to parent involvement in CSA prevention programs: ineffective program engagement modalities. Our findings showed that school-based programs engaged parents through a range of modes and materials along an involvement spectrum. From learning about and agreeing to their child’s participation in a program, through attending information sessions and receiving handouts, to completing homework activities alongside their child/ren. However, we found that programs stopped short without capturing opportunities to reach the very far end of the involvement spectrum in which, in the future, we might find dual-focused CSA prevention programs, aiming to increase the knowledge and skills of children and young people together with their parents and caregivers. These programs would incorporate the best of child-focused programs AND the best of parent-led or parent-focused programs. An important next step down this integrated prevention program route would be to evaluate the effect of these approaches on both child and parent outcomes. Future studies could also investigate whether the involvement of one or both parents differentially affects the program outcomes. Disclosure data must be collected as this can provide one indicator that a prevention program might actually result in children’s application of new knowledge and skills to threat situations (Guastaferro, Shipe, et al., 2023). Disclosure data may there provide insight into the effectiveness of different types of parental involvement.

We identified a dominant facilitator of parent involvement in CSA prevention: prior awareness of knowledge of CSA and its prevention. Our findings show that parents’ knowledge of CSA prevention was a facilitator of their involvement in child-focused CSA prevention programs. However, it is unclear due to the limitations in study designs whether parent prior knowledge improves prevention program outcomes for children. Therefore, to ensure parents are on a level playing field, parental involvement (e.g., in information sessions or education and training) should occur before a child-focused program is implemented. Alternatively, parent-led or parent-focused programs could be fully implemented prior to children engaging in a program. Involving parents in a parent-focused program prior to the implementation of a child-focused program provides opportunities to build baseline knowledge, increase their self-efficacy for CSA prevention discussions with their children, and monitor and shape parents ’attitudes toward program delivery. In a best-case scenario, informed parents can leverage social networks to create a groundswell of support for program delivery. Involving parents in CSA prevention education before their child’s program participation can also address further barriers identified in this review, those relating to fears and misconceptions which were more evident for parents of younger children and should be addressed considering the known age of onset of child sexual abuse in pre-adolescence and adolescence (Abd el Rahman et al., 2017; Aydin et al., 2015; Ferragut et al., 2021; Finkelhor, 1995; McKillop et al., 2015). A final benefit to parent involvement before child participation is that parents themselves will receive CSA prevention education. Many will not have received this, themselves, while at school. Critical findings are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3.

Critical Findings.

• We reviewed 50 empirical studies and 7 program descriptions published between 1984 and 2021; almost three-quarters of them were published in the 1980s and 1990s
• Most of the studies were Anglocentric, with three-quarters published in North America and almost 90% published in English-speaking countries
• Female caregivers were the predominant participants, making up 62%–100%
• Rationales for parental involvement included monitoring and shaping parental attitudes toward CSA program delivery in schools; reinforcing children’s learning at home; promoting parent–child communication about CSA prevention; building parent capacity to respond to child disclosures; and supporting program delivery for preschoolers
• Types of parental involvement included parenting; communication; learning at home; volunteering; decision-making; and collaboration with community
• Barriers to parent involvement included ineffective program engagement modalities, and fears and misconceptions
• Facilitators of parental involvement included prior knowledge of CSA and its prevention, and outreach, communications, and information provision
• The methodological quality of the empirical studies was highly varied, with the earlier studies scoring lower with the appraisement tool used, due to less stringent reporting guidelines at the time of publishing

CSA = child sexual abuse.

Diversity

The generalizability of findings from this review should be interpreted with several diversity limitations in mind. The empirical studies and program descriptions included in this review were conducted in high- and middle-income countries. Reporting on the plurality of parental demographic characteristics, including cultural and linguistic diversity, sexual orientations and gender identities, and (dis)ability status was poor, and should be improved in future study reports. As noted above, many studies (and the interventions they were evaluating) focused on mothers.

Limitations

This review was limited to an analysis of parent involvement in child-focused CSA prevention education. We did not inquire into the outcomes or effectiveness of parent involvement; this has been studied in detail by Rudolph et al. (2024). In addition to the above-mentioned diversity limitations, the body of research is aging with only six studies reported in the past 10 years. The studies had methodological weaknesses associated with variability in study designs and selective reporting of program features, sample characteristics, and study procedures.

Implications for Practice and Future Research

From our review, there are several key implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to consider in their work (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research.

• Involving parents in CSA prevention education programs can improve parent–child communication relating to CSA prevention and can increase parents’ confidence to discuss CSA issues with their children
• CSA prevention education programs can involve parents in various ways with varying degrees of time and resource intensity, such as workshops, information-sharing sessions, and educational activities for parents to complete with their children
• CSA prevention education programs need to consider strategies for increasing the involvement of fathers and other family members, as well as account for time constraints as potential barriers to involvement
• CSA prevention education programs need to consider involving parents in program development decision-making prior to deployment to harness valuable insights and facilitate parent engagement
• Further research is needed on more current child-focused CSA prevention education programs to better understand the role of parents in the success of such programs
• Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness of parental involvement on children’s safety, knowledge, skills and behavior, and parent’s capabilities and knowledge
• Further research is needed to assess parental involvement in ethnocultural and identity diverse populations
• Further research, development, facilitation, and evaluation are needed for child-focused CSA education programs beyond school-based contexts and settings

CSA = child sexual abuse.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380241235895 – Supplemental material for Engaging Parents in Child-Focused Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education Strategies: A Systematic Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380241235895 for Engaging Parents in Child-Focused Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Education Strategies: A Systematic Review by Douglas Hugh Russell, Sebastian Trew, Lottie Harris, Jessica Dickson, Kerryann Walsh, Daryl John Higgins and Rhiannon Smith in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This review is based in part on work that was funded by Bravehearts Foundation—an Australian child protection organization dedicated to the prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse through funds provided by the Westpac Safe Children, Safe Communities grant scheme.

ORCID iDs

Douglas Hugh Russell

Sebastian Trew

Lottie Harris

Kerryann Walsh

Daryl John Higgins

Rhiannon Smith

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Douglas Hugh Russell, MSc, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, is a senior research officer with the Institute of Child Protection Studies at Australian Catholic University. With a background in primary school teaching, his current research interests include the participation of children and young people in child-safe organizations, and the capabilities of adults to prevent and respond to child sexual abuse. He is also a PhD candidate at the University of Melbourne investigating the relationship between sex hormones, puberty blockers, and neurocognitive development in adolescence.

Sebastian Trew, MHR, PhD, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, is a research officer with the Institute of Child Protection Studies. His doctoral research focused on families with lived experience of autism. He has worked within the out-of-home care sector including residential care, intensive family support, youth housing and homelessness, disability support, academic mentoring, and executive program support.

Lottie Harris, BSoc.Sci, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, is a doctoral student and research assistant with the Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University. Lottie’s study is part of the Australian Child Maltreatment Study, the first Australian study of the prevalence of child maltreatment. Lottie’s research focus is on the health impacts of child multi-type maltreatment, and the subsequent best-practice interventions for children and young people in out-of-home care.

Jessica Dickson, BA/BEd, MIM, Library Academic and Research Services, Australian Catholic University, is a senior librarian in Library Academic and Research Services at Australian Catholic University. She supports researchers, academic staff, and students in the School of Behavioral and Health Sciences and has contributed to a number of research projects with the Institute of Child Protection Studies.

Kerryann Walsh, PhD, Queensland University of Technology, is a professor in Education at Queensland University of Technology. She leads research teams in a program of research focused on generating evidence for child maltreatment prevention and strengthening workforce capacity for prevention, early intervention, and response. Her methodological expertise includes research synthesis, process and outcome evaluation, and applied research using mixed methods.

Daryl John Higgins, PhD, Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University, is a professor at the Australian Catholic University where he is a director of the Institute of Child Protection Studies. His research focuses on the prevalence of child maltreatment, multi-type maltreatment, public health approaches to protecting children, and child-safe organizational strategies. A registered psychologist, Prof Higgins has been researching child abuse impacts and prevention, family violence, and family functioning for over 30 years. His numerous publications have made a significant impact on policy related to child maltreatment, both in Australia and internationally.

Rhiannon Smith, Queensland University of Technology, is a social scientist and research assistant at the Queensland University of Technology working on projects relating to the prevention of violence against women and children. Rhiannon also works with Australia’s National Research Organization for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) which works to make high-quality evidence available to inform policy and practice.

References

Abd El Rahman

A. E.

Azab

S. M.

Ramadan

(2017). Study of cases of child sexual abuse referred for medico-legal examination in Cairo and Giza, Egypt, 2007–2011. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26(3), 308–318.

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2018). National principles for child safe organizations. https://childsafe.humanrights.gov.au/national-principles

Aydin

Akbas

Turla

Dundar

Yuce

Karabekiroglu

(2015). Child sexual abuse in Turkey: An analysis of 1002 cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 60(1), 61–65.

Babatsikos

(2010). Parents’ knowledge, attitudes and practices about preventing child sexual abuse: A literature review. Child Abuse Review, 19(2), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1102

Barth

Bermetz

Heim

Trelle

Tonia

(2013). The current prevalence of child sexual abuse worldwide: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Public Health, 58, 469–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0426-1

*Binder

R. L.

McNiel

D. E.

(1987). Evaluation of a school-based sexual abuse prevention program: Cognitive and emotional effects. Child Abuse & Neglect, 11(4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(87)90075-5

*Borkin

Frank

(1986). Sexual abuse prevention for preschoolers: A pilot program. Child Welfare, 65, 75–82.

Brassard

M. R.

Fiorvanti

C. M.

(2015). School-based child abuse prevention programs. Psychology in the Schools, 52(1), 40–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21811

Braun

Clarke

(2019). Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health, 11(4), 589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806

10.

*Briggs

Hawkins

R. M.

(1994). Follow-up data on the effectiveness of New Zealand’s national school based child protection program. Child Abuse &Neglect, 18(8), 635–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90013-2

11.

*Briggs

Hawkins

R. M.

(1996). Low socio-economic status children are disadvantaged in the provision of school-based child protection programs. The British Journal of Social Work, 26(5), 667–678. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011140

12.

Campbell

McKenzie

J. E.

Sowden

Katikireddi

S. V.

Brennan

S. E.

Ellis

Hartmann-Boyce

Ryan

Shepperd

Thomas

Welch

Thomson

(2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: Reporting guideline. BMJ, 368, l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890

13.

*Charlesworth

L. W.

Rodwell

M. K.

(1997). Focus groups with children: A resource for sexual abuse prevention program evaluation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(12), 1205–1216. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00095-1

14.

*Christian

Dwyer

Schumm

W. R.

Coulson

L. A.

(1988). Prevention of sexual abuse for preschoolers: Evaluation of a pilot program. Psychological Reports, 62(2), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1988.62.2.387

15.

Choudhry

Dayal

Pillai

Kalokhe

A. S.

Beier

Patel

(2018). Child sexual abuse in India: A systematic review. PloS One, 13(10), e0205086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205086

16.

Cohen

Katz

(2021). Preventing child maltreatment: Key conclusions from a systematic literature review of prevention programs for practitioners. Child Abuse & Neglect, 118, 105138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105138

17.

*Committee for Children. (2001). Talking about touching: A personal safety curriculum (3rd ed.). Committee for Children.

18.

*Currier

L. L.

Wurtele

S. K.

(1996). A pilot study of previously abused and non-sexually abused children’s responses to a personal safety program. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 5(1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v05n01_04

19.

Davis

M. K.

Gidycz

C. A.

(2000). Child sexual abuse prevention programs: A meta-analysis. Journal of clinical child psychology, 29(2), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2902_11

20.

De La Rue

Polanin

J. R.

Espelage

D. L.

Pigott

T. D.

(2017). A meta-analysis of school-based interventions aimed to prevent or reduce violence in teen dating relationships. Review of Educational Research, 87(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316632061

21.

Del Campo

Fávero

. (2019). Effectiveness of programs for the prevention of child sexual abuse. European Psychologist, 25(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000379

22.

Epstein

J. L.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships in teachers’ professional work. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2018.1465669

23.

Epstein

J. L.

Sanders

M. G.

Sheldon

S. B.

Simon

B. S.

Salinas

K. C.

Jansorn

N. R.

Van Voorhis

F. L.

Martin

C. S.

Thomas

B. G.

Greenfeld

M. D.

Hutchins

D. J.

Williams

K. J.

(2018). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook for action. Corwin Press.

24.

Ferragut

Ortiz-Tallo

Blanca

M. J.

(2021). Victims and perpetrators of child sexual abuse: Abusive contact and penetration experiences. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(18), 9593.

25.

Firmin

(2020). Contextual safeguarding and child protection: Rewriting the rules. Routledge.

26.

Finkelhor

(1995). The victimization of children: A developmental perspective. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65(2), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079618

27.

*Fisher

G. L.

(1985). Teaching the mentally handicapped to avoid sexual exploitation. University of Nevada-Reno.

28.

Fryda

C. M.

Hulme

P. A.

(2015). School-based childhood sexual abuse prevention programs: An integrative review. The Journal of School Nursing, 31(3), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059840514544125

29.

*Gesser-Edelsburg

Fridman

Lev-Wiesel

(2017). Edutainment as a strategy for parental discussion with Israeli children: The potential of a children’s play in preventing sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 26(5), 553–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2017.1319003

30.

Goldfarb

E. S.

Lieberman

L. D.

(2021). Three decades of research: The case for comprehensive sex education. Journal of Adolescent Health, 68(1), 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.07.036

31.

Guastaferro

Felt

J. M.

Font

S. A.

Connell

C. M.

Miyamoto

Zadzora

K. M.

Noll

J. G.

(2020). Parent-focused sexual abuse prevention: Results from a cluster randomized trial. Child Maltreatment, 27(1), 114–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077559520963870

32.

Guastaferro

Shipe

S. L.

Connell

C. M.

Letourneau

E. J.

Noll

J. G.

(2023). Implementation of a universal school-based child sexual abuse prevention program: A longitudinal cohort study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(15–16), 8785–8802. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605231158765

33.

Hailes

H. P.

Danese

Fazel

(2019). Long-term outcomes of childhood sexual abuse: An umbrella review. The Lancet Psychiatry, 6(10), 830–839. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30286-x

34.

*Harms

James

(1984). Talking about touching: A personal safety curriculum. Seattle Institute for Child Advocacy, Committee for Children.

35.

*Hébert

Lavoie

Piché

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

36.

*Herndon

(1984). Protecting young children from sexual abuse [Conference presentation]. Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Los Angeles, CA, 8-11 November.

37.

Higgins

D. J.

Morley

(2018). Understanding situational crime prevention for child sexual abuse: What services need to know. ACU Safeguarding Children and Young People Portal. https://safeguardingchildren.acu.edu.au/practice_tools/situational_crime_prevention

38.

Higgins

D. J.

Russell

D. H.

(2024). The social determinants of safety model: Measuring improvement in organizational child safeguarding contexts and practices. [Manuscript in preparation].

39.

Higgins

D. J.

Lawrence

Haslam

D. M.

Mathews

Malacova

Erskine

H. E.

Finkelhor

Pacella

Meinck

Thomas

H. J.

Scott

J. G.

(2024). Prevalence of diverse genders and sexualities in Australia and associations with five forms of child maltreatment and multi-type maltreatment. Child Maltreatment, 10775595231226331.

40.

Hunt

Walsh

(2011). Parents’ views about child sexual abuse prevention education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/183693911103600209

41.

*Jin

Chen

Jiang

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

42.

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). (2020). Critical appraisal tools. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

43.

*Johnson

B. B.

(1987). Sexual abuse prevention: A rural interdisciplinary effort. Child Welfare, 66(2), 165–173.

44.

*Kenny

M. C.

(2009a). Child sexual abuse prevention: Psychoeducational groups for preschoolers and their parents. The Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 34(1), 24–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933920802600824

45.

*Kenny

M. C.

(2009b). Childhood sexual abuse prevention education with Latino families. In Levine

Pollack

(Eds.), Social work forum (pp. 27–40). Wurzweiler School of Social Work, Yeshiva University.

46.

*Kenny

M. C.

(2010). Child sexual abuse education with ethnically diverse families: A preliminary analysis. Children and Youth Services Review, 32(7), 981–989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.03.025

47.

Kenny

M. C.

Capri

Thakkar

R. R.

Ryan

E. E.

Runyon

M. K.

(2008). Child sexual abuse: From prevention to self-protection. Child Abuse Review, 17(1), 36–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1012

48.

Keeping Children Safe. (2014). The international child safeguarding standards and how to implement them. https://www.keepingchildrensafe.global/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/KCS-CS-Standards-ENG-200218.pdf

49.

*Khoori

Gholamfarkhani

Tatari

Wurtele

S. K.

(2020). Parents as teachers: Mothers’ roles in sexual abuse prevention education in Gorgan, Iran. Child Abuse & Neglect, 109, 104695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104695

50.

Kim

(2022). Fifty years of parental involvement and achievement research: A second-order meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 37, 100463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2022.100463

51.

*Kimberly

(2020). “My Body, My Boundaries”: The impact of a new sexual health program on elementary age children and parents in Mississippi. Journal of Applied Research on Children, 11(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.58464/2155-5834.1382

52.

Kloppen

Haugland

Svedin

C. G.

Mæhle

Breivik

(2016). Prevalence of child sexual abuse in the Nordic countries: A literature review. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 25(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2015.1108944

53.

*Ko

S. F.

Cosden

M. A.

(2001). Do elementary school-based child abuse prevention programs work? A high school follow-up. Psychology in the Schools, 38(1), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(200101)38:1<57::AID-PITS6>3.0.CO;2-W200101

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, 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985655

55.

*Kolko

D. J.

Moser

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, 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00976368

56.

*Krahé

Knappert

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

57.

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%2Fj.chiabu.2018.02.020

58.

Letourneau

E. J.

Eaton

W. W.

Bass

Berlin

F. S.

Moore

S. G.

(2014). The need for a comprehensive public health approach to preventing child sexual abuse. Public Health Reports, 129(3), 222–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/003335491412900303

59.

*Liddell

Young

(1986). Pre-school sexual abuse prevention project. Seattle City Department of Human Resources. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED289585.pdf

60.

Livingston

J. A.

Allen

K. P.

Nickerson

A. B.

O’Hern

K. A.

(2020). Parental perspectives on sexual abuse prevention: Barriers and challenges. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(12), 3317–3334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-020-01796-0

61.

Barlow

Meinck

Walsh

(2023). School-based child sexual abuse interventions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 33(4), 390–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315221111393

62.

Lynas

Hawkins

(2017). Fidelity in school-based child sexual abuse prevention programs: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72, 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.07.003

63.

*MacIntyre

Carr

(1999). Evaluation of the effectiveness of the stay safe primary prevention program for child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1307–1325. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(99)00092-7

64.

*MacIntyre

Carr

Lawlor

Flattery

(2000). Development of the stay safe program. Child Abuse Review, 9(3), 200–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0852(200005/06)9:3<200::AID-CAR596>3.0.CO;2-T

65.

*Madak

P. R.

Berg

D. H.

(1992). The prevention of sexual abuse: An evaluation of “Talking About Touching.” Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 26(1), 29–40.

66.

Malamsha

M. P.

Sauli

Luhanga

E. T.

(2021). Development and validation of a mobile game for culturally sensitive child sexual abuse prevention education in Tanzania: Mixed methods study. JMIR Serious Games, 9(4), e30350. https://doi.org/10.2196/30350

67.

Manay

Collin-Vézina

(2021). Recipients of children’s and adolescents’ disclosures of childhood sexual abuse: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 116, 104192.

68.

*Martorella

A. M.

Portugues

A. M.

(1998). Prevention of sexual abuse in children with learning disabilities. Child Abuse Review, 7(5), 355–359. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0852(199809/10)7:5<355::AID-CAR506>3.0.CO;2-O

69.

Mathews

Pacella

Scott

J. G.

Finkelhor

Meinck

Higgins

D. J.

Erskine

Thomas

Lawrence

Haslam

D. M.

Malacova

Dunne

M. P.

(2023). The prevalence of child maltreatment in Australia: Findings from a national survey. Medical Journal of Australia, 218(S6), S13–S18. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.51873

70.

McKillop

Brown

Smallbone

Pritchard

(2015). Similarities and differences in adolescence-onset versus adulthood-onset sexual abuse incidents. Child Abuse & Neglect, 46, 37-46.

71.

*Meiksin

Allen

Crichton

Morgan

G. S.

Barter

Elbourne

Hunt

Melendez-Torres

G. J.

Morris

Reyes

H. L. M. N.

Sturgess

Taylor

Young

Campbell

Bonell

(2019). Protocol for pilot cluster RCT of project respect: A school-based intervention to prevent dating and relationship violence and address health inequalities among young people. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 5, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-019-0391-z

72.

Mendelson

Letourneau

E. J.

(2015). Parent-focused prevention of child sexual abuse. Prevention Science, 16(6), 844–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-015-0553-z

73.

*Miltenberger

R. G.

Thiesse-Duffy

(1988). Evaluation of home-based programs for teaching personal safety skills to children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.1988.21-81

74.

*Miltenberger

R. G.

Thiesse-Duffy

Kozak

Bruellman

(1991). Teaching prevention skills to children: The use of multiple measures to evaluate parent versus expert instruction. Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 12(4), 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1300/J019v12n04_04

75.

*Nibert

Cooper

Ford

(1989). Parents’ observations of the effect of a sexual-abuse prevention program on preschool children. Child Welfare, 68(5), 539–546.

76.

Nickerson

A. B.

Livingston

J. A.

Kamper-DeMarco

(2018). Evaluation of second step child protection videos: A randomized controlled trial. Child Abuse & Neglect, 76, 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.10.001

77.

NSPCC. (2017). Safeguarding standards and guidance. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/research-resources/2019/safeguarding-child-protection-standards

78.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

McGuinness

L. A.

, . . .Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

79.

Pereda

Guilera

Forns

Gómez-Benito

(2009). The prevalence of child sexual abuse in community and student samples: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(4), 328–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2009.02.007

80.

*Peterson

P. J.

(1984). Ready, set, grow! Health education for 3–5 year olds. Peterson Publishing.

81.

*Poche

Brouwer

Swearingen

(1981). Teaching self-protection to young children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14(2), 169–175. https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.1981.14-169

82.

*Poche

Yoder

Miltenberger

(1988). Teaching self-protection to children using television techniques. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 21(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1901%2Fjaba.1988.21-253

83.

*Pohl

J. D.

Hazzard

(1990). Reactions of children, parents, and teachers to child sexual abuse prevention programs. Education, 110(3), 337–344.

84.

Popay

Roberts

Sowden

Petticrew

Arai

Rodgers

Britten

Roen

Duffy

(2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. Institute of Health Research. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.178.3100&rep=rep1&type=pdf

85.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

Elmagarmid

(2016). Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

86.

*Ratto

Bogat

G. A.

(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.

Rispens

Aleman

Goudena

P. P.

(1997). Prevention of child sexual abuse victimization: A meta-analysis of school programs. Child Abuse & Neglect, 21(10), 975–987. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(97)00058-6

88.

Rudolph

J. I.

van Berkel

S. R.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Walsh

Straker

Campbell

(2024). Parental involvement in programs to prevent child sexual abuse: A systematic review of four decades of research. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(1), 560–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231156408

89.

Rudolph

J. I.

Walsh

Shanley

D. C.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2022). Child sexual abuse prevention: parental discussion, protective practices and attitudes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP22375–NP22400.

90.

Rudolph

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

(2018). Reviewing the focus: A summary and critique of child-focused sexual abuse prevention. Trauma Violence Abuse, 19(5), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016675478

91.

Rudolph

J. I.

Zimmer-Gembeck

M. J.

Straker

Hambour

Hawes

Swan

(2023b). Parental-led sexual abuse education amongst at-risk parents: Associations with parenting practices, and parent and child symptomology. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 23(5), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2023.2222116

92.

Russell

Higgins

(2021). Children and young people’s safety: 2018–2020 report. Institute of Child Protection Studies (ACU). https://safeguardingchildren.acu.edu.au/research-and-resources/2018-2020-report

93.

Russell

D. H.

Higgins

D. J.

(2023). Friends and safeguarding: young people’s views about safety and to whom they would share safety concerns. Child Abuse Review, 32(3), e2825. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2825

94.

Russell

D. H.

Higgins

D. J.

(2024). Social determinants of safety: A systematic review of organizational safeguarding models and conceptual frameworks. [Manuscript in preparation].

95.

*Ruzicka

A. E.

Assini-Meytin

L. C.

Schaeffer

C. M.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Letourneau

E. J.

(2021). Responsible behavior with younger children: Examining the feasibility of a classroom-based program to prevent child sexual abuse perpetration by adolescents. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 30(4), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2021.1881858

96.

Sanders

M. R.

Kirby

J. N.

Tellegen

C. L.

Day

J. J.

(2014). The Triple P-Positive Parenting Program: A systematic review and meta-analysis of a multi-level system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(4), 337–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.04.003

97.

Sanderson

(2004). Child-focused sexual abuse prevention programs. Crime and Misconduct Commission Queensland: Research and Issues Paper Series, 50, 1–8.

98.

Saul

Audage

N. C.

(2007). Preventing child sexual abuse within youth-serving organizations: Getting started on policies and procedures. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/preventingchildsexualabuse-a.pdf

99.

*Shumow

(1988). How kindergarten parents perceive their role in sexual abuse prevention [Meeting paper]. Annual meeting of the Chicago Association for the Education of Young Children.

100.

Slattery

Saeri

A. K.

Bragge

(2020). Research co-design in health: A rapid overview of reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9

101.

Smallbone

Marshall

W. L.

Wortley

(2013). Preventing child sexual abuse: Evidence, policy and practice. Routledge.

102.

*Spungen

C. A.

Jensen

S. E.

Finkelstein

N. W.

Satinsky

F. A.

(1989). Child personal safety: Model program for prevention of child sexual abuse. Social Work, 34(2), 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/34.2.127

103.

Stevens

Garritty

Hersi

Moher

(2018). Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies. https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/#51

104.

*Swan

H. L.

Press

A. N.

Briggs

S. L.

(1985). Child sexual abuse prevention: Does it work? Child Welfare, 64(4), 395–405.

105.

*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

106.

Tanaka

Suzuki

Y. E.

Aoyama

Takaoka

MacMillan

H. L.

(2017). Child sexual abuse in Japan: A systematic review and future directions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 66, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.02.041

107.

*Tobin

(1985). The children’s self-help project: A model program for the prevention of child sexual abuse. Möbius: A Journal for Continuing Education Professionals in Health Sciences, 5(1), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.4760050112

108.

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

109.

*Tremblay

Bégin

(2000). Evaluation of mother knowledge in preventing child sexual abuse. International Journal of Early Childhood, 32(2), 83. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174474

110.

Trew

Russell

D. H.

Higgins

D. J.

Walsh

(2021). Effective delivery methods and teaching strategies for child sexual abuse prevention: A rapid evidence check. Institute of Child Protection Studies, Australian Catholic University. https://doi.org/10.26199/rdbq-xm46

111.

Tricco

A. C.

Langlois

E. V.

Straus

S. E.

(2017). Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: A practical guide. World Health Organization, https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/258698/9789241512763-eng.pdf?sequence=1

112.

*Tutty

L. M.

(1992). The ability of elementary school children to learn child sexual abuse prevention concepts. Child Abuse & Neglect, 16(3), 369–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(92)90046-T

113.

*Tutty

L. M.

(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

114.

*Tutty

L. M.

(2000). What children learn from sexual abuse prevention programs: Difficult concepts and developmental issues. Research on Social Work Practice, 10(3), 275–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973150001000301

115.

Walsh

Brandon

(2012). Their children’s first educators: Parents’ views about child sexual abuse prevention education. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 21(5), 734–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-011-9526-4

116.

Walsh

Zwi

Woolfenden

Shlonsky

(2015). School-based education program for the prevention of child sexual abuse: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 11(1), 1–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004380.pub3

117.

*Warden

Moran

Gillies

Mayes

Macleod

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

118.

*Weatherley

Hajar

A. S.

Noralina

John

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.

Williams

Boylan

Nunan

(2020). Critical appraisal of qualitative research: necessity, partialities and the issue of bias. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 25, 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111132

120.

*Wilson

C. G.

Golub

(1993). Sexual abuse prevention programs for preschool children: What do parents prefer? Psychological Reports, 73(3_part_1), 812–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/00332941930733pt115

121.

*Wurtele

S. K.

(1993a). Enhancing children’s sexual development through child sexual abuse prevention programs. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1080/01614576.1993.11074068

122.

*Wurtele

S. K.

(1993b). The role of maintaining telephone contact with parents during the teaching of a personal safety program. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2(1), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1300/J070v02n01_05

123.

*Wurtele

S. K.

Currier

L. L.

Gillispie

E. I.

Franklin

C. F.

(1991). The efficacy of a parent-implemented program for teaching preschoolers personal safety skills. Behavior Therapy, 22(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80245-X

124.

*Wurtele

S. K.

Gillispie

E. I.

Currier

L. L.

Franklin

C. F.

(1992a). A comparison of teachers versus 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

L. C.

Melzer

A. M.

(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.

Kenny

M. C.

(2010). Partnering with parents to prevent childhood sexual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 19(2), 130–152. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1112

127.

Wurtele

S. K.

Kenny

M. C.

(2012). Preventing childhood sexual abuse: An ecological approach. In Goodyear-Brown

(Ed.), Handbook of child sexual abuse: Identification, assessment and treatment (pp. 531–565). Wiley Press.

128.

*Wurtele

S. K.

Saslawsky

D. A.

Miller

C. L.

Marrs

S. R.

Britcher

J. C.

(1986). Teaching 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

129.

Xie

Q. W.

Qiao

D. P.

Wang

X. L.

(2016). Parent-involved prevention of child sexual abuse: A qualitative exploration of parents’ perceptions and practices in Beijing. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25(3), 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-015-0277-5

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB