[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  PRISMA Flow Diagram of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
PRISMA Flow Diagram of Studies Included in the Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Table 1.  Characteristics of the 37 Studies Included in the Meta-analysis by Study Design
Characteristics of the 37 Studies Included in the Meta-analysis by Study Design
Table 2.  Factors Associated With CSE
Factors Associated With CSE
Table 3.  Factors Associated With CSE by Longitudinal Study Design
Factors Associated With CSE by Longitudinal Study Design
1.
United Nations. United Nations Glossary on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. 2nd ed. Published July 24, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2018. https://hr.un.org/sites/hr.un.org/files/SEA%20Glossary%20%20%5BSecond%20Edition%20-%202017%5D%20-%20English_0.pdf
2.
Commission for Children and Young People. “...As a good parent would”: inquiry into the adequacy of the provision of residential care services to Victorian children and young people who have been subject to sexual abuse or sexual exploitation whilst residing in residential care. Published August 2015. Accessed January 3, 2018. https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/assets/Publications-inquiries/as-a-good-parent-would.pdf
3.
Richard  AO. International trafficking in women to the United States: a contemporary manifestation of slavery and organized crime. Center for the Study of Intelligence, DCI Exceptional Intelligence Analyst Program. Published April 2000. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/trafficking.pdf
4.
Commonwealth of Australia. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Final Report. Volume 2. Nature and Cause. Published 2017. Accessed August 15, 2018. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_2_nature_and_cause.pdf
5.
Ulloa  E, Salazar  M, Monjaras  L.  Prevalence and correlates of sex exchange among a nationally representative sample of adolescents and young adults.   J Child Sex Abus. 2016;25(5):524-537. doi:10.1080/10538712.2016.1167802 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Panlilio  CC, Miyamoto  S, Font  SA, Schreier  HMC.  Assessing risk of commercial sexual exploitation among children involved in the child welfare system.   Child Abuse Negl. 2019;87:88-99. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Larsen  J, Renshaw  L. People trafficking in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology. Published June 28, 2012. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi441
8.
Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Understanding online child sexual exploitation awareness, perceptions, attitudes and preventative behaviours. Published February 2020. Accessed March 3, 2020. https://www.accce.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/60246/ACCCE_Research-Report_OCE.pdf
9.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Global report on trafficking in persons. Published December 2018. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/glotip.html
10.
Cook  L, Mott  A.  Teenagers and their sexual partners: what age difference should raise concerns of sexual exploitation?   Child Abuse Rev. 2020;29(1):48-60. doi:10.1002/car.2600 Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Fraley  HE, Aronowitz  T.  The peace and power conceptual model: an assessment guide for school nurses regarding commercial sexual exploitation of children.   Nurs Sci Q. 2017;30(4):317-323. Published online September 21, 2017. doi:10.1177/0894318417724456PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Flowers  RB.  The sex trade industry’s worldwide exploitation of children.   Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2001;575(1):147-157. doi:10.1177/000271620157500109 Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Martin  J.  Child sexual abuse images online: implications for social work training and practice.   Br J Soc Work. 2016;46(2):372-388. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu116 Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Chang  K, Lee  K, Park  T, Sy  E, Thu  Q.  Using a clinic-based screening tool for primary care providers to identify commercially sexually exploited children.   J Appl Res Child. 2015;6(1):1-15.Google Scholar
15.
Fedina  L, Williamson  C, Perdue  T.  Risk factors for domestic child sex trafficking in the United States.   J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(13):2653-2673. doi:10.1177/0886260516662306 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Oram  S, Khondoker  M, Abas  M, Broadbent  M, Howard  LM.  Characteristics of trafficked adults and children with severe mental illness: a historical cohort study.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(12):1084-1091. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00290-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Saewyc  EM, Edinburgh  LD.  Restoring healthy developmental trajectories for sexually exploited young runaway girls: fostering protective factors and reducing risk behaviors.   J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(2):180-188. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Edwards  JM, Halpern  CT, Wechsberg  WM.  Correlates of exchanging sex for drugs or money among women who use crack cocaine.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18(5):420-429. doi:10.1521/aeap.2006.18.5.420 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kaestle  CE.  Selling and buying sex: a longitudinal study of risk and protective factors in adolescence.   Prev Sci. 2012;13(3):314-322. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0268-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Segal  L. Economic issues in the community response to child maltreatment. In: Mathews B, Bross DC, eds.  Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect. Springer Netherlands; 2015:193-216. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9685-9_10
21.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. The economic costs of child abuse and neglect. Published September 2018. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/economic-costs-child-abuse-and-neglect
22.
Fredlund  C, Svensson  F, Svedin  CG, Priebe  G, Wadsby  M.  Adolescents’ lifetime experience of selling sex: development over five years.   J Child Sex Abus. 2013;22(3):312-325. doi:10.1080/10538712.2013.743950 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Deb  S, Mukherjee  A, Mathews  B.  Aggression in sexually abused trafficked girls and efficacy of intervention.   J Interpers Violence. 2011;26(4):745-768. doi:10.1177/0886260510365875 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Lavoie  F, Thibodeau  C, Gagné  M-H, Hébert  M.  Buying and selling sex in Québec adolescents: a study of risk and protective factors.   Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39(5):1147-1160. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9605-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Reid  JA.  An exploratory model of girls’ vulnerability to commercial sexual exploitation in prostitution.   Child Maltreat. 2011;16(2):146-157. doi:10.1177/1077559511404700 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Adjei  JK, Saewyc  EM.  Boys are not exempt: sexual exploitation of adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.   Child Abuse Negl. 2017;65:14-23. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Swahn  MH, Simon  TR, Arias  I, Bossarte  RM.  Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships.   J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(8):1120-1138. doi:10.1177/0886260508314086 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Naramore  R, Bright  MA, Epps  N, Hardt  NS.  Youth arrested for trading sex have the highest rates of childhood adversity: a statewide study of juvenile offenders.   Sex Abuse. 2017;29(4):396-410. doi:10.1177/1079063215603064 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
O’Brien  JE, Li  W, Givens  A, Leibowitz  GS.  Domestic minor sex trafficking among adjudicated male youth: prevalence and links to treatment.   Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;82:392-399. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.026 Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Svedin  CG, Priebe  G.  Selling sex in a population-based study of high school seniors in Sweden: demographic and psychosocial correlates.   Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36(1):21-32. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9083-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Chohaney  ML.  Minor and adult domestic sex trafficking risk factors in Ohio.   J Soc Soc Work Res. 2016;7(1):117-141. doi:10.1086/685108 Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Reid  JA, Piquero  AR.  Age-graded risks for commercial sexual exploitation of male and female youth.   J Interpers Violence. 2014;29(9):1747-1777. doi:10.1177/0886260513511535 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Moynihan  M, Pitcher  C, Saewyc  E.  Interventions that foster healing among sexually exploited children and adolescents: a systematic review.   J Child Sex Abus. 2018;27(4):403-423. doi:10.1080/10538712.2018.1477220 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Salisbury  EJ, Dabney  JD, Russell  K.  Diverting victims of commercial sexual exploitation from juvenile detention: development of the InterCSECt screening protocol.   J Interpers Violence. 2015;30(7):1247-1276. doi:10.1177/0886260514539846 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Wilson  HW, Widom  CS.  The role of youth problem behaviors in the path from child abuse and neglect to prostitution: a prospective examination.   J Res Adolesc. 2010;20(1):210-236. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00624.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Bruhns  ME, del Prado  A, Slezakova  J, Lapinski  AJ, Li  T, Pizer  B.  Survivors’ perspectives on recovery from commercial sexual exploitation beginning in childhood.   Couns Psychol. 2018;46(4):413-455. doi:10.1177/0011000018777544 Google ScholarCrossref
37.
United Nations. Goal 5: achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. United Nations Sustainable Development. Published January 1, 2016. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/
38.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.   JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Madigan  S, Ly  A, Rash  CL, Van Ouytsel  J, Temple  JR.  Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(4):327-335. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Sanderson  S, Tatt  ID, Higgins  JP.  Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.   Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666-676. doi:10.1093/ije/dym018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Tsang  TW, Lucas  BR, Carmichael Olson  H, Pinto  RZ, Elliott  EJ.  Prenatal alcohol exposure, FASD, and child behavior: a meta-analysis.   Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20152542. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2542 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Hoy  D, Brooks  P, Woolf  A,  et al.  Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(9):934-939. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Thomas  R, Sanders  S, Doust  J, Beller  E, Glasziou  P.  Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):e994-e1001. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3482 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 3. Biostat; 2016. Accessed September 2, 2020. https://www.meta-analysis.com/pages/faq.php
46.
Borenstein  M.  Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
47.
Marín-Martínez  F, Sánchez-Meca  J.  Averaging dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: a cautionary note about procedures.   Span J Psychol. 1999;2(1):32-38. doi:10.1017/S1138741600005436 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
IntHout  J, Ioannidis  JP, Rovers  MM, Goeman  JJ.  Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.   BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010247. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Chiolero  A, Santschi  V, Burnand  B, Platt  RW, Paradis  G.  Meta-analyses: with confidence or prediction intervals?   Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(10):823-825. doi:10.1007/s10654-012-9738-y PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Atwood  KA, Kennedy  SB, Shamblen  S,  et al.  Reducing sexual risk taking behaviors among adolescents who engage in transactional sex in post-conflict Liberia.   Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2012;7(1):55-65. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Fredlund  C, Dahlström  Ö, Svedin  CG, Wadsby  M, Jonsson  LS, Priebe  G.  Adolescents’ motives for selling sex in a welfare state - A Swedish national study.   Child Abuse Negl. 2018;81:286-295. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.04.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Greenbaum  VJ, Livings  MS, Lai  BS,  et al.  Evaluation of a tool to identify child sex trafficking victims in multiple healthcare settings.   J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(6):745-752. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Ireland  CA, Alderson  K, Ireland  JL.  Sexual exploitation in children: nature, prevalence, and distinguishing characteristics reported in young adulthood.   J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2015;24(6):603-622. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1049765Google ScholarCrossref
54.
Layne  CM, Greeson  JKP, Ostrowski  SA,  et al.  Cumulative trauma exposure and high risk behavior in adolescence: findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network core data set.   Psychol Trauma. 2014;6(suppl 1):S40-S49. doi:10.1037/a0037799Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Lung  F-W, Lin  T-J, Lu  Y-C, Shu  B-C.  Personal characteristics of adolescent prostitutes and rearing attitudes of their parents: a structural equation model.   Psychiatry Res. 2004;125(3):285-291. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2003.12.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Martin  L, Hearst  MO, Widome  R.  Meaningful differences: comparison of adult women who first traded sex as a juvenile versus as an adult.   Violence Against Women. 2010;16(11):1252-1269. doi:10.1177/1077801210386771PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
O’Brien  JE, White  K, Rizo  CF.  Domestic minor sex trafficking among child welfare–involved youth: an exploratory study of correlates.   Child Maltreat. 2017;22(3):265-274. doi:10.1177/1077559517709995PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Pedersen  W, Hegna  K.  Children and adolescents who sell sex: a community study.   Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(1):135-147. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00015-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Self-Brown  S, Culbreth  R, Wilson  R, Armistead  L, Kasirye  R, Swahn  MH.  Individual and parental risk factors for sexual exploitation among high-risk youth in Uganda.   J Interpers Violence. 2018;886260518771685. Published online April 23, 2018. doi:10.1177/0886260518771685PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Swahn  MH, Culbreth  R, Salazar  LF, Kasirye  R, Seeley  J.  Prevalence of HIV and associated risks of sex work among youth in the slums of Kampala.   AIDS Res Treat. 2016;2016:5360180. doi:10.1155/2016/5360180PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Grosso  AL, Ketende  S, Dam  K,  et al.  Structural determinants of health among women who started selling sex as minors in Burkina Faso.   J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;68(suppl 2):S162-S170. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000447PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Reid  JA, Piquero  AR.  Applying general strain theory to youth commercial sexual exploitation.   Crime Delinq. 2016;62(3):341-367. doi:10.1177/0011128713498213Google ScholarCrossref
63.
Reid  JA.  Risk and resiliency factors influencing onset and adolescence-limited commercial sexual exploitation of disadvantaged girls.   Crim Behav Ment Health. 2014;24(5):332-344. doi:10.1002/cbm.1903PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Urada  LA, Silverman  JG, Cordisco Tsai  L, Morisky  DE.  Underage youth trading sex in the Philippines: trafficking and HIV risk.   AIDS Care. 2014;26(12):1586-1591. doi:10.1080/09540121.2014.936818PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Nadon  SM, Koverola  C, Schludermann  EH.  Antecedents to prostitution: childhood victimization.   J Interpersonal Violence. 1998;13(2):206-221. doi:10.1177/088626098013002003Google Scholar
66.
Yates  GL, Mackenzie  RG, Pennbridge  J, Swofford  A.  A risk profile comparison of homeless youth involved in prostitution and homeless youth not involved.   J Adolesc Health. 1991;12(7):545-548. doi:10.1016/0197-0070(91)90085-ZPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Goodman  A, Goodman  R.  Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores and mental health in looked after children.   Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(5):426-427. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.104380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Jumper  SA.  A meta-analysis of the relationship of child sexual abuse to adult psychological adjustment.   Child Abuse Negl. 1995;19(6):715-728. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00029-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Jones  DJ, Lewis  T, Litrownik  A,  et al.  Linking childhood sexual abuse and early adolescent risk behavior: the intervening role of internalizing and externalizing problems.   J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(1):139-150. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9656-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Klettke  B, Hallford  DJ, Clancy  E, Mellor  DJ, Toumbourou  JW.  Sexting and psychological distress: the role of unwanted and coerced sexts.   Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019;22(4):237-242. doi:10.1089/cyber.2018.0291 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Gámez-Guadix  M, Almendros  C, Borrajo  E, Calvete  E.  Prevalence and association of sexting and online sexual victimization among Spanish adults.   Sex Res Soc Policy. 2015;12(2):145-154. doi:10.1007/s13178-015-0186-9 Google ScholarCrossref
72.
Rostad  WL, Gittins-Stone  D, Huntington  C, Rizzo  CJ, Pearlman  D, Orchowski  L.  The association between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence in grade 10 high school students.   Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(7):2137-2147. doi:10.1007/s10508-019-1435-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Choi  H, Van Ouytsel  J, Temple  JR.  Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents.   J Adolesc. 2016;53:164-168. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
State Government of Victoria. Australia. Child sexual exploitation and grooming. Updated July 31, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2018. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/childprotection/Pages/expolitationgrooming.aspx
75.
Van der Kolk  BA.  Developmental trauma disorder.   Psychiatr Ann. 2005;35(5):401-408. doi:10.3928/00485713-20050501-06 Google ScholarCrossref
76.
Van der Kolk  BA.  The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Penguin Books; 2015.
77.
Felitti  VJ, Anda  RF, Nordenberg  D,  et al.  Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.   Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245-258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. Published February 28, 2018. Accessed January 9, 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/summary
79.
Cortina  LM, Kubiak  SP.  Gender and posttraumatic stress: sexual violence as an explanation for women’s increased risk.   J Abnorm Psychol. 2006;115(4):753-759. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.753 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Arora  SK, Shah  D, Chaturvedi  S, Gupta  P.  Defining and measuring vulnerability in young people.   Indian J Community Med. 2015;40(3):193-197. doi:10.4103/0970-0218.158868 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Rizzo  C, Hunter  H, Lang  D,  et al.  Dating violence victimization and unprotected sex acts among adolescents in mental health treatment.   J Child Fam Stud. 2012;21(5):825-832. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9543-3 Google ScholarCrossref
82.
Basson  D, Langs  J, Acker  K, Katz  S, Desai  N, Ford  J. Psychotherapy for commercially sexually exploited children: a guide for community-based behavioral health practitioners and agencies. West Coast Children’s Clinic; 2018. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.westcoastcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/MH_Treatment_Guide_CSEC.pdf
83.
Kezelman  C, Stavropoulos  P. Practice guidelines for clinical treatment of complex trauma. Blue Knot Foundation; 2019. Accessed February 5, 2020. https://www.blueknot.org.au/Resources/Publications/Practice-Guidelines/Practice-Guidelines-2019
84.
McElwain  A, McGill  J, Savasuk-Luxton  R.  Youth relationship education: a meta-analysis.   Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;82I:499-507. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.036 Google ScholarCrossref
85.
O’Connell  DJ.  Investigating latent trait and life course theories as predictors of recidivism among an offender sample.   J Crim Justice. 2003;31(5):455-467. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00050-3 Google ScholarCrossref
86.
Read  J, Mayne  R.  Understanding the long-term effects of childhood adversities: beyond diagnosis and abuse.   J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2017;10(3):289-297. doi:10.1007/s40653-017-0137-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
87.
Green  AH.  Child sexual abuse: immediate and long-term effects and intervention.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32(5):890-902. doi:10.1097/00004583-199309000-00002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. The long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Published January 2013. Accessed November 20, 2019. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/long-term-effects-child-sexual-abuse/interpersonal-outcomes
89.
Homma  Y, Nicholson  D, Saewyc  EM.  A profile of high school students in rural Canada who exchange sex for substances.   Can J Hum Sex. 2012;21(1):29-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
90.
Semahegn  A, Torpey  K, Manu  A, Assefa  N, Tesfaye  G, Ankomah  A.  Are interventions focused on gender-norms effective in preventing domestic violence against women in low and lower-middle income countries? a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12978-019-0726-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Wyatt  GE, Guthrie  D, Notgrass  CM.  Differential effects of women’s child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60(2):167-173. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.2.167 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
Psychiatry
September 22, 2020

Demographic and Psychosocial Factors Associated With Child Sexual Exploitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Author Affiliations
  • 1School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
  • 2Center for Social and Early Emotional Development, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
  • 3Addictive and Anti-Social Behaviour Research, Deakin University Centre for Drug Use, Geelong, Australia
JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(9):e2017682. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17682
Key Points

Question  What risk factors are associated with sexual exploitation in children?

Findings  A systematic review and meta-analysis of 37 unique studies with 67 453 unique participants found 52 factors were associated with child sexual exploitation and available for meta-analysis. Results showed significant factors associated with exposure to sexual exploitation for children and youth are engagement in sexual risk behaviors, increased number of sex partners, posttraumatic stress disorder, exposure to child pornography, and a history of childhood sexual abuse.

Meaning  Findings of this study suggest sexual risk behaviors, trauma, and exposure to sexual violence are key factors associated with sexual exploitation in children; results should inform future policy reform and prevention and intervention efforts.

Abstract

Importance  Although research has examined factors associated with child sexual exploitation (CSE), consensus is lacking in regard to which factors should be prioritized, thereby hindering policy reform, prevention efforts, and development of early detection and intervention.

Objective  To provide a meta-analytic synthesis of studies examining factors associated with CSE and to quantify their relative importance.

Data Sources  Electronic databases searched to June 2019 included Medline, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and Informit, yielding 396 nonduplicative records. Literature search was performed in July 2019.

Study Selection  Inclusion criteria were quantitative investigations of sexual exploitation and mean sample age of 18 years or younger.

Data Extraction and Synthesis  Literature review and data extraction followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Thirty-seven studies met final inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted all relevant data. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to derive odds ratios (ORs) for each factor. Data were analyzed from September 1 to October 28, 2019, and prediction intervals calculated in June 2020.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Child sexual exploitation, defined as coerced sexual acts between a child or a young person (aged ≤18 years) and an individual or a group in exchange for money, gifts, substances, or other commodities and associated factors.

Results  Thirty-seven unique studies were included with a total of 67 453 unique participants (mean [SD] age of 16.2 [2.5] years; 49.9% female). Fifty-two factors associated with CSE were included in the meta-analysis. The strongest factors significantly associated with exposure to sexual exploitation were engagement in sexual risk behaviors (OR, 6.31 [95% CI, 3.12-12.76]; P < .001), having more than 5 sexual partners (OR, 5.96 [95% CI, 1.63-21.87]; P = .007), a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (OR, 5.29 [95% CI, 3.40-8.22]; P < .001), historical exposure to child pornography (OR, 5.50 [95% CI, 0.99-30.53]; P = .049), and a history of childhood sexual abuse (OR, 3.80 [95% CI, 3.19-4.52]; P < .001). A number of other potentially modifiable factors had moderate to strong associations.

Conclusions and Relevance  In this systematic review and meta-analysis, children and adolescents affected by sexual exploitation showed high levels of sexual risk taking, multiple sexual partners, posttraumatic stress disorder, exposure to child pornography, and childhood trauma. Accurate detection of CSE may prevent this type of sexual violence occurring to adolescents and/or provide opportunities for intervention and recovery. Therefore, prevention and intervention efforts will likely benefit from integrating these factors into screening, assessment, and treatment.

Introduction

Sexual exploitation is the second most lucrative crime in the world,1-4 estimated to affect up to 5% of the general child and youth population worldwide,5,6 with increasing numbers detected globally during the past decade.7-9 Although no unified global definition of child sexual exploitation (CSE) exists, it is considered a subtype of human trafficking.1 Definitions commonly include the actual or attempted abuse of a position of vulnerability, differential power, or trust over adolescents and children for sexual activity (online and/or offline) in exchange for something of value (eg, gifts, money, substances, or developmental needs, including shelter, food, and protection).1,2 Power imbalance between a perpetrator and young person is often characterized by age differences; however, age cutoffs vary greatly, making CSE difficult to clearly define and identify.10,11 Furthermore, CSE can occur between perpetrators and those exposed to sexual exploitation of the same age, and samples of young people can include emerging adults. Therefore, sexual exploitation vulnerability factors are likely more clinically relevant than singular age cutoffs in detecting and intervening for individuals affected by CSE. Nevertheless, to classify studies unequivocally, the present study focuses on CSE occurring in people 18 years or younger.

Research has indicated that sexually exploited young people are often psychologically controlled and manipulated by perpetrators; experience forcible isolation, rape, and extreme physical violence12; incur sexually transmitted infections13,14; and experience psychopathology, suicidality,15-17 and substance addiction.18,19 These outcomes have substantial economic costs, including service provision by child protection and health departments and long-term effects across the lifetime on the health and well-being of the individual.20,21

Previous research has identified numerous vulnerability factors associated with CSE, including psychological distress,17 emotion dysregulation,22-24 psychiatric symptoms,15-17 childhood trauma,5,25 poverty,13,26 single-parent families,19,27,28 criminality,29-31 and age.19,32 However, although these studies make an important contribution through the identification of discrete factors, no systematic synthesis of findings has been conducted to identify and quantify which factors are most critical and should be prioritized in CSE screening and intervention programs,33 for example, to investigate whether running away is associated with risk for CSE,34,35 a protective factor,26 or even unrelated.11

Furthermore, policy analysts, researchers, and professionals have advocated for multidimensional CSE prevention and intervention programs, which necessitate collaboration across health care providers, schools, and social services to support the needs of the child.36 However, despite growing documentation of CSE factors, the present evidence base only identifies unilateral risk factors or consists of studies insufficient in quality to meaningfully guide prevention and intervention.33

Therefore, to contribute to the elimination of all forms of trafficking and sexual exploitation, as outlined in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted by the United Nations,37 and to inform the development of effective CSE prevention and intervention, this meta-analysis aimed to synthesize the current evidence base of risk and protective factors associated with CSE and their estimated effect sizes. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analytic review to examine and quantify factors associated with CSE.

Methods

The review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD42018100344). We followed the standards set by the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE)38 and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines.39

Included studies met the following inclusion criteria: (1) investigated sexual exploitation; (2) examined factors associated with sexual exploitation; (3) included children and young people (with a mean age of ≤18 years); (4) reported quantitative data; and (5) available in the English language. Studies were excluded if they (1) targeted adults (defined as mean age of sample >18 years); (2) described data qualitatively only; or (3) investigated sexual exploitation offenses.

Key terms (see eTable 1 in the Supplement) were searched via electronic databases in July 2019. The search included Medline, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and Informit to June 2019. Articles were limited to peer-reviewed content. In addition, references of all included studies and gray literature (eg, government reports and working papers) were hand searched. Two authors (J.J.L. and B.K.) independently screened all titles and abstracts to determine which would proceed to full-text review. When reviewers were uncertain of a study’s eligibility, the full report was obtained, and discrepancies were discussed to obtain consensus.

Data collected from eligible studies included variables associated with CSE. Sexual exploitation definitions, sample size, study design, and study location were also extracted. If studies reported multiple effect sizes for the same variable, the effects were collapsed to avoid violating the independence of study effects. For example, variables such as living in foster care and living in residential care were collapsed as child protection involvement (see eTable 2 in the Supplement for full variable extraction information). When the same study sample was present across multiple publications, the largest sample size and the most comprehensive data extraction information was used. Studies were double coded, and discrepancies were resolved via consensus to maximize reliability and accuracy.

To examine the quality of methods and findings from included studies, 2 independent authors (J.J.L. and E.C.) evaluated each article, scoring them separately using a 9-point critical appraisal assessment tool adapted from Madigan et al40 (2018), based on previous meta-analytic research.1-44 Articles were given a score of 0 (no) or 1 (yes) for each criterion and summed to provide a total score of a possible 9. Higher scores correspond with higher methodological quality and lower risk of bias. Studies were categorized as low (<2), moderate (3-5), or high (≥6) quality. Full-quality assessment coding criteria and results are provided in eTables 2 and 3 in the Supplement.

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed from September 1 to October 28, 2019. Prediction intervals were calculated in June 2020. Data were extracted and analyzed in Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, version 3.45 A series of meta-analyses were conducted for each sexual exploitation factor, presented as an odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% CIs around the estimate. Effect sizes were weighted by the inverse of their variance, giving greater weight to studies with larger sample sizes, and thus more precision around estimates. Random-effects models were selected to calculate effect sizes, because they assume a distribution of effects across studies.

The Q and I2 statistics were computed to assess for statistical heterogeneity of effect sizes.46,47 A significant Q statistic suggests that study variability in effect size estimates is greater than the sampling error. The I2 statistic (ranging from 0%-100%) indicates the proportion of variability across studies owing to heterogeneity rather than chance. An I2 statistic of greater than 50% is indicative of at least moderate amounts of heterogeneity, although the statistic should be interpreted cautiously where there are few studies. Owing to variability of effects across different settings, prediction intervals are reported to evaluate between-study heterogeneity. A 95% prediction interval estimates where the true effects are expected for 95% of similar studies that might be conducted in the future.48,49 Two-tailed P < .05 indicated significance.

Results
Selected Studies

As shown in the PRISMA flow diagram (Figure), the electronic search yielded 396 nonduplicate records. A total of 112 articles were identified as potentially meeting inclusion criteria, with 37 full-text articles reviewed and included within the meta-analysis.

Study Characteristics

In total, 67 453 participants were included, with a mean (SD) age of 16.2 (2.5) years and near even distribution across sex (49.9% female and 50.1% male). The sample included 8.3% participants younger than 13 years; 2.3% aged 14 years, 34.3% aged 15 years, 44.8% aged 16 years, and 10.3% aged 17 to 18 years. Most studies were from the United States of America (n = 20), followed by Africa (n = 5), Sweden (n = 3), the United Kingdom (n = 2), and Canada (n = 3), with 1 study each from Taiwan, India, Norway, and the Philippines. All 37 articles5,6,14-19,22-26,28-32,34,35,38,50-57,59-66 were categorized in the high-quality range, with a mean (SD) study quality score of 8.4 (0.7) (see Table 1 and eTables 2 and 3 in the Supplement).

Factors Associated With CSE

A total of 52 factors associated with CSE were available for meta-analysis (see Table 2). These factors were collapsed across 6 domains, including demographic, trauma and exposure to abuse and/or violence, internalizing problems (ie, internally focused symptoms), externalizing problems (ie, externally focused behavioral symptoms), and psychosocial and protective domains.67

Thirteen studies5,14,17-19,28,30,32,50,54,55,57,60 were available to estimate the pooled effect size for the association between age and CSE (see Table 2), with mean participant ages ranging from 8 to 17 years. A random-effects analysis produced a significant combined effect size (OR) of 0.49 (95% CI, 0.35-0.69), indicating that for every year of age, the odds of being sexually exploited were 50% less (eg, an individual aged 16 years was half as likely to be sexually exploited compared with one aged 15 years). Female participants were twice as likely to experience CSE compared with male participants (OR, 2.25 [95% CI, 1.52-3.32]). Young people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities were more than twice as likely to experience CSE when compared with those who identified as White (OR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.95-3.39]). Heterogeneity was high for age and sex and moderate for culturally and linguistically diverse variables (see Table 2).

Of the 10 factors within this domain, 9 adverse childhood experiences (potentially traumatic events that occur from 0 to 17 years of age) were associated with increased odds of experiencing CSE in adolescence (see Table 2). A history of childhood sexual abuse increased the odds by nearly 4 times (OR, 3.80 [95% CI, 3.19-4.52]). Neglect (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.52-3.03]) and physical (OR, 1.61 [95% CI, 1.34-1.92]) and emotional (OR, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.04-2.46]) abuse doubled the odds. Numerous episodes of physical or sexual abuse before CSE increased the odds of exposure to CSE by 1.35 (95% CI, 1.12-1.64]). Evidence suggested that exposure to child pornography (OR, 5.50 [95% CI, 0.99-30.53]) or a history of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (OR, 5.29 [95% CI, 3.40-8.22]) were associated with experience of CSE in adolescents, increasing risk 5-fold. Exposure to violent or rape pornography (OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.08-7.04]), intimate partner violence (OR, 2.57 [95% CI, 1.47-4.47]), or a family member involved in sex work (OR, 1.84 [95% CI, 1.11-3.04]) increased the odds of experiencing CSE from 2 to 5 times. Family violence was not found to be associated with CSE (OR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.83-1.79]). Heterogeneity was high for exposure to child or violent pornography and moderate for intimate partner violence, neglect, sexual/physical abuse, repeated episodes of violence and/or abuse, and family violence. No heterogeneity was reported across PTSD or emotional abuse.

The strongest externalizing factors associated with CSE (Table 2) were sexual risk behaviors (ie, condomless sex, sex in public, or meeting strangers from an online chat for physical sex) (OR, 6.31 [95% CI, 3.12-12.76]) and reporting multiple sexual partners in a lifetime (OR, 5.96 [95% CI, 1.63-21.87]), increasing risk 6-fold. Externalizing problems, such as aggression and hostility toward others (OR, 3.50 [95% CI, 1.98-6.07]) and a lifetime history of committing a crime (OR, 3.10 [95% CI, 1.50-2.16]), sending a sext message (sexually explicit content via electronic device) (OR, 3.12 [95% CI, 1.92-5.10]), and being sexually active (OR, 2.98 [95% CI, 1.99-4.45]), were found to triple the odds of experiencing CSE. Alcohol and drug use (OR, 2.16 [95% CI, 1.67-2.79]), running away (OR, 2.28 [95% CI, 1.63-3.19]), interpersonal difficulties (OR, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.54-3.41]), or conflict at school (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.57-2.94]) doubled the likelihood of experiencing CSE. Age of first sexual experience (OR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.10-1.69]) and age at initial substance use (OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.74-2.29]) increased the odds of CSE by nearly 1.5 times. Interpersonal difficulties with caregivers was not statistically significant (OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 0.88-1.79]). Heterogeneity was moderate for sexting and marijuana use and high for all other externalizing factors.

Factors associated with CSE within the internalizing problems domain included anxiety symptoms (OR, 3.11 [95% CI, 2.13-4.50]), emotional dysregulation (OR, 2.91 [95% CI, 1.86-2.33]), psychological distress (OR, 2.76 [95% CI, 1.86-4.01]), and hopelessness and suicidality (OR, 2.64 [95% CI, 1.48-4.71]), all of which nearly tripled the odds of experiencing CSE (see Table 2). Depression (OR, 2.10 [95% CI, 1.27-3.46]), social isolation (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.19-2.20]), and locus of control (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.36-3.42]) doubled the odds of experiencing CSE. Self-esteem issues (OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.19-3.42]) and psychoticism (OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.46-2.62]) were not significant. Heterogeneity was moderate for locus of control and anxiety and high for remaining internalizing factors.

Psychosocial factors significantly associated with sexual exploitation include a history of having a sexually transmitted infection (OR, 2.90 [95% CI, 1.50-5.71]) or being part of a single-parent household (OR, 2.75 [95% CI, 1.48-5.11]), increasing the odds of experiencing CSE 3-fold. Adolescents who reported a history of homelessness (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.75-2.81]), family income below the poverty line (OR, 1.80 [95% CI, 1.19-2.72]), or child protection involvement (OR, 1.64 [95% CI, 1.14-2.35]) had a 2-fold risk. Youths exposed to household antisocial behaviors (ie, criminality) were 1.5 times as likely to experience CSE (OR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.19-1.94]). Stressful life events in general (OR, 1.15 [95% CI, 0.59-2.24]), household mental illness (OR, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.11-4.00]), exposure to heterosexual pornography (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.40-1.30]), and early parenthood themselves (<18 years of age) (OR, 0.70 [95% CI, 0.16-3.01]) were not significantly associated with CSE exposure. Heterogeneity was little or none for family involved in sex work, household antisocial behaviors, and exposure to pornography; moderate for social isolation and homelessness; and high for the remaining psychosocial factors.

Social engagement, including school completion or employment (OR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.65-1.05]) and protective relationships within the family (OR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.41-1.15]) or outside of the family unit (OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.49-2.63]), was not significantly associated with CSE exposure.

Factors Associated With CSE Based on Longitudinal Study Design

A total of 19 factors were extrapolated from longitudinal data (Table 3). Similar to the complete sample of studies, young people and children who experienced sexual exploitation were significantly more likely to experience child sexual abuse (OR, 2.89 95% CI, 1.70-4.58]), running away (OR, 2.75 [95% CI, 1.75-4.31]), homelessness (OR, 2.22 [95% CI, 1.68-2.92]), emotional dysregulation (OR, 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]), alcohol use (OR, 1.54 [95% CI, 1.24-1.93]), and/or externalizing problems (OR, 1.37 [95% CI, 1.08-1.73]) when compared with nonexploited youth. In contrast, there were no significant differences as a function of sex, physical abuse, marijuana use, age at first sexual experience, or depression. Age at initial substance use and social engagement with school or work remained nonsignificant for associations with CSE; however, protective relationships within the family significantly reduced the likelihood of experiencing CSE in adolescence (OR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-0.99]).

Discussion

Child sexual exploitation remains a major global problem demanding an evidence-based response. Although a plethora of vulnerability factors for CSE have been examined, the present study is the first, to our knowledge, to systematically synthesize and quantify factors associated with children and adolescents (≤18 years) affected by sexual exploitation and to ascertain which factors are the most significant. Findings highlighted young people who commonly experience recurring trauma and violence before exploitation and consequently experience psychological symptoms associated with prior exposure to abuse and/or violence and trauma as the strongest factors associated with CSE.

The most impactful risk factors associated with CSE are clustered around early, risky, and abusive sexual behaviors. These include sexual risk-taking behaviors (eg, condomless sex, sexual intercourse in public, or meeting face-to-face with strangers from an online environment for sex), multiple sex partners (>5), and exposure to child pornography, which increases the likelihood of exposure to CSE by as much as 6-fold. These findings are consistent with research that suggests exposure to sexually exploitative material and experiences at a young age contribute to ongoing risk behaviors and increased likelihood of exploitation in adolescence.68,69 Similarly, adolescents who experienced sexual abuse or have engaged in electronic sexting behaviors are 3 to 4 times as likely to experience CSE.70 Research consistently reports sexual risk taking, online and offline, to be linked with adverse mental health outcomes and future exploitation.70,71 Online sexual violence research also suggests that pornography and sexting behaviors can function as extensions of offline forms of sexual coercion,72,73 which may explain our findings associating several online sexual risk behaviors with the physical experience of CSE. Furthermore, exposure to or exchanging sexually explicit content online can act as a potential vehicle for online grooming and can be a form of CSE itself.74

Consequent to exposure to abuse and/or violence, it is not surprising that symptoms associated with trauma, including a diagnosis of PTSD, aggression or hostility toward others (ie, externalizing problems), anxiety, emotional dysregulation, and psychological distress were associated with a 3- to 5-fold increase in the likelihood of CSE. Neurobiological evidence indicates that unresolved trauma interferes with functioning in daily life and the capacity to regulate arousal, emotions, and behavior.75,76 For example, atypical regulatory systems develop to cope with threat when trauma is experienced at a young age,75 and although these strategies are effective in the short term (eg, running away or substance use), they are risky and damaging in the long term.77

A cluster of psychosocial vulnerabilities and demographic factors were also found to be associated with CSE, including age and sex. Specifically, results indicate younger age and female sex are implicated in CSE vulnerability, mirroring research that reports young women are twice as likely to experience sexual violence before 15 years of age when compared with young men.78 Some research reports other factors, such as PTSD, may be a greater determinant of future sexually violent situations independently of sex.79 The present study supports the notion that PTSD is a significantly stronger factor than sex, but these factors may still interact. Furthermore, results affirm research that indicates children and young people affected by HIV, poverty, homelessness, and broken homes are vulnerable to CSE at higher rates than their peers.80

Three protective factors were available for meta-analysis, and although protective relationships (extrafamilial and intrafamilial) and social engagement were not significantly associated with CSE in the complete sample of studies, separate analysis of these factors based on longitudinal design alone found close family relationships may protect young people from CSE. However, data were largely based on studies using samples from child protection and criminal justice services, thus limiting generalizability in regard to relational protective factors.

Seven studies17-19,25,32,34,62 based on a longitudinal design reported significant variation across effect sizes. Although findings were largely heterogenous, sex and internalizing factors, including psychological distress and depression, were not associated with CSE. These results are preliminary owing to limited data availability, and further investigation is warranted. However, longitudinal data provided further evidence that trauma and early childhood events of exposure to abuse and/or violence remain closely associated with future experiences of CSE. Although these events cannot be undone, trauma symptoms can be tempered by evidence-based interventions that assist with emotion regulation and trauma processing, supporting a young person’s pathway into recovery.81,82

A final finding of this study lies in confirmed variability among factor effect sizes between studies. Although seeking clarity regarding which factors are important for CSE intervention and prevention initially drove the conduct of this study, heterogenous findings further highlight the inconsistency and dearth of research within the area of CSE. Practice, policy, and, most importantly, the adolescents and children reflected in this research require further exploration to more wholly understand pathways into and out of sexual exploitation. Consequently, without further research, the development of efficacious prevention and intervention to eliminate this type of violence against children and youth may be hindered.

Clinical Implications

Based on our findings, earlier identification of CSE factors through screening is paramount in preventing further sexual exploitation of vulnerable children and adolescents. Most tertiary and primary health settings frequently screen for other risks, such as substance use and suicidality; however, despite the pervasiveness of sexual violence and CSE, these are rarely a focus of screening.79,80 Youth presenting to health services with sexual risk behaviors, sexually transmitted infection and HIV testing, a history of sexual violence online or offline, and a profile of trauma symptoms (eg, PTSD, externalizing problems, anxiety, or emotional dysregulation) warrant thorough assessment for potential CSE risk.

Prior research implicates unresolved childhood trauma as the single most significant factor associated with subsequent contact with the mental health system.83 Although current CSE intervention research is limited, most programs focus on broad psychosocial issues, such as prevention of homelessness or sexually transmitted infection,33 and do not address the need for psychological treatment of trauma symptoms. Furthermore, meta-analytic research indicates that efficacious CSE intervention programs should include both knowledge and skill building; however, few studies include both.33,82 Finally, although psychoeducational programs with respectful relationships curricula can improve healthy relationship knowledge and attitudes for youth in schools,84 these programs are not tailored to meet the complex needs of intervention for youth affected by CSE, especially given the overrepresentation of disengagement from formal school settings in youth populations affected by trauma.85 Therefore, our results suggest future CSE interventions would benefit from integrating the psychological treatment of trauma symptoms (eg, PTSD, externalizing disorders, emotion dysregulation, and anxiety) with a psychoeducation program that includes sexual safety both online and offline.

Limitations

The present results should be interpreted with the understanding that the findings are correlational and cannot imply causation of CSE. Further, there were discrepancies in the number of studies and sample sizes across factors, leading to some large variances in effect size estimates. Caution should also be exercised owing to the high proportion of data sampled from criminal records and child protection, which may bias generalizability. Further, some variables, such as self-esteem and personality, had very few studies included in the meta-analysis. Finally, because several identified factors are often co-occurring, additive and interactive effects are recommended for exploration in future research.

Conclusions

Risk factors associated with CSE must be addressed to prevent this type of sexual violence and to provide pathways for recovery for affected young people. The present study reports findings consistent with research that suggests early experiences of sexual violence may distort interpersonal relationships,86-88 normalize sexual risk,89 strengthen stereotypes regarding sex and violence,90 and perpetuate ongoing repeated exposure to violence and/or abuse.91 According to our meta-analytic results, adolescents or children presenting to primary or tertiary services with risky sexual behaviors, prior exposure to sexual violence online and offline, and mental health risk factors associated with trauma warrant further assessment for CSE. Trauma-informed intervention planning and design for youth affected by CSE should incorporate the psychological treatment of trauma symptoms alongside supportive psychoeducation regarding sexual safety online and offline. This review informs the current evidence base and the design of initiatives seeking to prevent and intervene early for CSE among children and adolescents.50

Back to top
Article Information

Accepted for Publication: July 13, 2020.

Published: September 22, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.17682

Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Laird JJ et al. JAMA Network Open.

Corresponding Author: Bianca Klettke, PhD, School of Psychology, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Hwy, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia (bianca.klettke@deakin.edu.au).

Author Contributions: Ms Laird and Dr Hallford had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: Laird, Klettke, Hall, Hallford.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Laird, Klettke, Clancy, Hallford.

Drafting of the manuscript: Laird, Hall, Hallford.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Laird, Hallford.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Laird, Hallford.

Supervision: Klettke, Hall, Hallford.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

References
1.
United Nations. United Nations Glossary on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. 2nd ed. Published July 24, 2017. Accessed August 13, 2018. https://hr.un.org/sites/hr.un.org/files/SEA%20Glossary%20%20%5BSecond%20Edition%20-%202017%5D%20-%20English_0.pdf
2.
Commission for Children and Young People. “...As a good parent would”: inquiry into the adequacy of the provision of residential care services to Victorian children and young people who have been subject to sexual abuse or sexual exploitation whilst residing in residential care. Published August 2015. Accessed January 3, 2018. https://ccyp.vic.gov.au/assets/Publications-inquiries/as-a-good-parent-would.pdf
3.
Richard  AO. International trafficking in women to the United States: a contemporary manifestation of slavery and organized crime. Center for the Study of Intelligence, DCI Exceptional Intelligence Analyst Program. Published April 2000. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/books-and-monographs/trafficking.pdf
4.
Commonwealth of Australia. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Final Report. Volume 2. Nature and Cause. Published 2017. Accessed August 15, 2018. https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/final_report_-_volume_2_nature_and_cause.pdf
5.
Ulloa  E, Salazar  M, Monjaras  L.  Prevalence and correlates of sex exchange among a nationally representative sample of adolescents and young adults.   J Child Sex Abus. 2016;25(5):524-537. doi:10.1080/10538712.2016.1167802 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Panlilio  CC, Miyamoto  S, Font  SA, Schreier  HMC.  Assessing risk of commercial sexual exploitation among children involved in the child welfare system.   Child Abuse Negl. 2019;87:88-99. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.07.021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Larsen  J, Renshaw  L. People trafficking in Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology. Published June 28, 2012. Accessed October 29, 2018. https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi441
8.
Australian Centre to Counter Child Exploitation. Understanding online child sexual exploitation awareness, perceptions, attitudes and preventative behaviours. Published February 2020. Accessed March 3, 2020. https://www.accce.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/60246/ACCCE_Research-Report_OCE.pdf
9.
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. Global report on trafficking in persons. Published December 2018. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/glotip.html
10.
Cook  L, Mott  A.  Teenagers and their sexual partners: what age difference should raise concerns of sexual exploitation?   Child Abuse Rev. 2020;29(1):48-60. doi:10.1002/car.2600 Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Fraley  HE, Aronowitz  T.  The peace and power conceptual model: an assessment guide for school nurses regarding commercial sexual exploitation of children.   Nurs Sci Q. 2017;30(4):317-323. Published online September 21, 2017. doi:10.1177/0894318417724456PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Flowers  RB.  The sex trade industry’s worldwide exploitation of children.   Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. 2001;575(1):147-157. doi:10.1177/000271620157500109 Google ScholarCrossref
13.
Martin  J.  Child sexual abuse images online: implications for social work training and practice.   Br J Soc Work. 2016;46(2):372-388. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcu116 Google ScholarCrossref
14.
Chang  K, Lee  K, Park  T, Sy  E, Thu  Q.  Using a clinic-based screening tool for primary care providers to identify commercially sexually exploited children.   J Appl Res Child. 2015;6(1):1-15.Google Scholar
15.
Fedina  L, Williamson  C, Perdue  T.  Risk factors for domestic child sex trafficking in the United States.   J Interpers Violence. 2019;34(13):2653-2673. doi:10.1177/0886260516662306 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Oram  S, Khondoker  M, Abas  M, Broadbent  M, Howard  LM.  Characteristics of trafficked adults and children with severe mental illness: a historical cohort study.   Lancet Psychiatry. 2015;2(12):1084-1091. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00290-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Saewyc  EM, Edinburgh  LD.  Restoring healthy developmental trajectories for sexually exploited young runaway girls: fostering protective factors and reducing risk behaviors.   J Adolesc Health. 2010;46(2):180-188. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.06.010 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Edwards  JM, Halpern  CT, Wechsberg  WM.  Correlates of exchanging sex for drugs or money among women who use crack cocaine.   AIDS Educ Prev. 2006;18(5):420-429. doi:10.1521/aeap.2006.18.5.420 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Kaestle  CE.  Selling and buying sex: a longitudinal study of risk and protective factors in adolescence.   Prev Sci. 2012;13(3):314-322. doi:10.1007/s11121-011-0268-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Segal  L. Economic issues in the community response to child maltreatment. In: Mathews B, Bross DC, eds.  Mandatory Reporting Laws and the Identification of Severe Child Abuse and Neglect. Springer Netherlands; 2015:193-216. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9685-9_10
21.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. The economic costs of child abuse and neglect. Published September 2018. Accessed November 14, 2019. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/economic-costs-child-abuse-and-neglect
22.
Fredlund  C, Svensson  F, Svedin  CG, Priebe  G, Wadsby  M.  Adolescents’ lifetime experience of selling sex: development over five years.   J Child Sex Abus. 2013;22(3):312-325. doi:10.1080/10538712.2013.743950 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Deb  S, Mukherjee  A, Mathews  B.  Aggression in sexually abused trafficked girls and efficacy of intervention.   J Interpers Violence. 2011;26(4):745-768. doi:10.1177/0886260510365875 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Lavoie  F, Thibodeau  C, Gagné  M-H, Hébert  M.  Buying and selling sex in Québec adolescents: a study of risk and protective factors.   Arch Sex Behav. 2010;39(5):1147-1160. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9605-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Reid  JA.  An exploratory model of girls’ vulnerability to commercial sexual exploitation in prostitution.   Child Maltreat. 2011;16(2):146-157. doi:10.1177/1077559511404700 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Adjei  JK, Saewyc  EM.  Boys are not exempt: sexual exploitation of adolescents in sub-Saharan Africa.   Child Abuse Negl. 2017;65:14-23. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.01.001 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Swahn  MH, Simon  TR, Arias  I, Bossarte  RM.  Measuring sex differences in violence victimization and perpetration within date and same-sex peer relationships.   J Interpers Violence. 2008;23(8):1120-1138. doi:10.1177/0886260508314086 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Naramore  R, Bright  MA, Epps  N, Hardt  NS.  Youth arrested for trading sex have the highest rates of childhood adversity: a statewide study of juvenile offenders.   Sex Abuse. 2017;29(4):396-410. doi:10.1177/1079063215603064 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
O’Brien  JE, Li  W, Givens  A, Leibowitz  GS.  Domestic minor sex trafficking among adjudicated male youth: prevalence and links to treatment.   Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;82:392-399. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.026 Google ScholarCrossref
30.
Svedin  CG, Priebe  G.  Selling sex in a population-based study of high school seniors in Sweden: demographic and psychosocial correlates.   Arch Sex Behav. 2007;36(1):21-32. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-9083-x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Chohaney  ML.  Minor and adult domestic sex trafficking risk factors in Ohio.   J Soc Soc Work Res. 2016;7(1):117-141. doi:10.1086/685108 Google ScholarCrossref
32.
Reid  JA, Piquero  AR.  Age-graded risks for commercial sexual exploitation of male and female youth.   J Interpers Violence. 2014;29(9):1747-1777. doi:10.1177/0886260513511535 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Moynihan  M, Pitcher  C, Saewyc  E.  Interventions that foster healing among sexually exploited children and adolescents: a systematic review.   J Child Sex Abus. 2018;27(4):403-423. doi:10.1080/10538712.2018.1477220 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Salisbury  EJ, Dabney  JD, Russell  K.  Diverting victims of commercial sexual exploitation from juvenile detention: development of the InterCSECt screening protocol.   J Interpers Violence. 2015;30(7):1247-1276. doi:10.1177/0886260514539846 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Wilson  HW, Widom  CS.  The role of youth problem behaviors in the path from child abuse and neglect to prostitution: a prospective examination.   J Res Adolesc. 2010;20(1):210-236. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00624.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Bruhns  ME, del Prado  A, Slezakova  J, Lapinski  AJ, Li  T, Pizer  B.  Survivors’ perspectives on recovery from commercial sexual exploitation beginning in childhood.   Couns Psychol. 2018;46(4):413-455. doi:10.1177/0011000018777544 Google ScholarCrossref
37.
United Nations. Goal 5: achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls. United Nations Sustainable Development. Published January 1, 2016. Accessed July 21, 2019. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/gender-equality/
38.
Stroup  DF, Berlin  JA, Morton  SC,  et al; Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) Group.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting.   JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012. doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Moher  D, Liberati  A, Tetzlaff  J, Altman  DG; PRISMA Group.  Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.   PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Madigan  S, Ly  A, Rash  CL, Van Ouytsel  J, Temple  JR.  Prevalence of multiple forms of sexting behavior among youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   JAMA Pediatr. 2018;172(4):327-335. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.5314 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
41.
Sanderson  S, Tatt  ID, Higgins  JP.  Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.   Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(3):666-676. doi:10.1093/ije/dym018 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
42.
Tsang  TW, Lucas  BR, Carmichael Olson  H, Pinto  RZ, Elliott  EJ.  Prenatal alcohol exposure, FASD, and child behavior: a meta-analysis.   Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20152542. doi:10.1542/peds.2015-2542 PubMedGoogle Scholar
43.
Hoy  D, Brooks  P, Woolf  A,  et al.  Assessing risk of bias in prevalence studies: modification of an existing tool and evidence of interrater agreement.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(9):934-939. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.014 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
44.
Thomas  R, Sanders  S, Doust  J, Beller  E, Glasziou  P.  Prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Pediatrics. 2015;135(4):e994-e1001. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3482 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
45.
Borenstein M, Hedges L, Higgins J, Rothstein H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, version 3. Biostat; 2016. Accessed September 2, 2020. https://www.meta-analysis.com/pages/faq.php
46.
Borenstein  M.  Introduction to Meta-Analysis. John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
47.
Marín-Martínez  F, Sánchez-Meca  J.  Averaging dependent effect sizes in meta-analysis: a cautionary note about procedures.   Span J Psychol. 1999;2(1):32-38. doi:10.1017/S1138741600005436 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
48.
IntHout  J, Ioannidis  JP, Rovers  MM, Goeman  JJ.  Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.   BMJ Open. 2016;6(7):e010247. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247 PubMedGoogle Scholar
49.
Chiolero  A, Santschi  V, Burnand  B, Platt  RW, Paradis  G.  Meta-analyses: with confidence or prediction intervals?   Eur J Epidemiol. 2012;27(10):823-825. doi:10.1007/s10654-012-9738-y PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
50.
Atwood  KA, Kennedy  SB, Shamblen  S,  et al.  Reducing sexual risk taking behaviors among adolescents who engage in transactional sex in post-conflict Liberia.   Vulnerable Child Youth Stud. 2012;7(1):55-65. PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Fredlund  C, Dahlström  Ö, Svedin  CG, Wadsby  M, Jonsson  LS, Priebe  G.  Adolescents’ motives for selling sex in a welfare state - A Swedish national study.   Child Abuse Negl. 2018;81:286-295. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.04.030PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
52.
Greenbaum  VJ, Livings  MS, Lai  BS,  et al.  Evaluation of a tool to identify child sex trafficking victims in multiple healthcare settings.   J Adolesc Health. 2018;63(6):745-752. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.06.032PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
53.
Ireland  CA, Alderson  K, Ireland  JL.  Sexual exploitation in children: nature, prevalence, and distinguishing characteristics reported in young adulthood.   J Aggress Maltreat Trauma. 2015;24(6):603-622. doi:10.1080/10926771.2015.1049765Google ScholarCrossref
54.
Layne  CM, Greeson  JKP, Ostrowski  SA,  et al.  Cumulative trauma exposure and high risk behavior in adolescence: findings from the National Child Traumatic Stress Network core data set.   Psychol Trauma. 2014;6(suppl 1):S40-S49. doi:10.1037/a0037799Google ScholarCrossref
55.
Lung  F-W, Lin  T-J, Lu  Y-C, Shu  B-C.  Personal characteristics of adolescent prostitutes and rearing attitudes of their parents: a structural equation model.   Psychiatry Res. 2004;125(3):285-291. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2003.12.019PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
56.
Martin  L, Hearst  MO, Widome  R.  Meaningful differences: comparison of adult women who first traded sex as a juvenile versus as an adult.   Violence Against Women. 2010;16(11):1252-1269. doi:10.1177/1077801210386771PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
57.
O’Brien  JE, White  K, Rizo  CF.  Domestic minor sex trafficking among child welfare–involved youth: an exploratory study of correlates.   Child Maltreat. 2017;22(3):265-274. doi:10.1177/1077559517709995PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
58.
Pedersen  W, Hegna  K.  Children and adolescents who sell sex: a community study.   Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(1):135-147. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00015-1PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
59.
Self-Brown  S, Culbreth  R, Wilson  R, Armistead  L, Kasirye  R, Swahn  MH.  Individual and parental risk factors for sexual exploitation among high-risk youth in Uganda.   J Interpers Violence. 2018;886260518771685. Published online April 23, 2018. doi:10.1177/0886260518771685PubMedGoogle Scholar
60.
Swahn  MH, Culbreth  R, Salazar  LF, Kasirye  R, Seeley  J.  Prevalence of HIV and associated risks of sex work among youth in the slums of Kampala.   AIDS Res Treat. 2016;2016:5360180. doi:10.1155/2016/5360180PubMedGoogle Scholar
61.
Grosso  AL, Ketende  S, Dam  K,  et al.  Structural determinants of health among women who started selling sex as minors in Burkina Faso.   J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;68(suppl 2):S162-S170. doi:10.1097/QAI.0000000000000447PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
62.
Reid  JA, Piquero  AR.  Applying general strain theory to youth commercial sexual exploitation.   Crime Delinq. 2016;62(3):341-367. doi:10.1177/0011128713498213Google ScholarCrossref
63.
Reid  JA.  Risk and resiliency factors influencing onset and adolescence-limited commercial sexual exploitation of disadvantaged girls.   Crim Behav Ment Health. 2014;24(5):332-344. doi:10.1002/cbm.1903PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
64.
Urada  LA, Silverman  JG, Cordisco Tsai  L, Morisky  DE.  Underage youth trading sex in the Philippines: trafficking and HIV risk.   AIDS Care. 2014;26(12):1586-1591. doi:10.1080/09540121.2014.936818PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Nadon  SM, Koverola  C, Schludermann  EH.  Antecedents to prostitution: childhood victimization.   J Interpersonal Violence. 1998;13(2):206-221. doi:10.1177/088626098013002003Google Scholar
66.
Yates  GL, Mackenzie  RG, Pennbridge  J, Swofford  A.  A risk profile comparison of homeless youth involved in prostitution and homeless youth not involved.   J Adolesc Health. 1991;12(7):545-548. doi:10.1016/0197-0070(91)90085-ZPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
67.
Goodman  A, Goodman  R.  Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire scores and mental health in looked after children.   Br J Psychiatry. 2012;200(5):426-427. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.111.104380 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Jumper  SA.  A meta-analysis of the relationship of child sexual abuse to adult psychological adjustment.   Child Abuse Negl. 1995;19(6):715-728. doi:10.1016/0145-2134(95)00029-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
69.
Jones  DJ, Lewis  T, Litrownik  A,  et al.  Linking childhood sexual abuse and early adolescent risk behavior: the intervening role of internalizing and externalizing problems.   J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2013;41(1):139-150. doi:10.1007/s10802-012-9656-1 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
70.
Klettke  B, Hallford  DJ, Clancy  E, Mellor  DJ, Toumbourou  JW.  Sexting and psychological distress: the role of unwanted and coerced sexts.   Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2019;22(4):237-242. doi:10.1089/cyber.2018.0291 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
Gámez-Guadix  M, Almendros  C, Borrajo  E, Calvete  E.  Prevalence and association of sexting and online sexual victimization among Spanish adults.   Sex Res Soc Policy. 2015;12(2):145-154. doi:10.1007/s13178-015-0186-9 Google ScholarCrossref
72.
Rostad  WL, Gittins-Stone  D, Huntington  C, Rizzo  CJ, Pearlman  D, Orchowski  L.  The association between exposure to violent pornography and teen dating violence in grade 10 high school students.   Arch Sex Behav. 2019;48(7):2137-2147. doi:10.1007/s10508-019-1435-4 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Choi  H, Van Ouytsel  J, Temple  JR.  Association between sexting and sexual coercion among female adolescents.   J Adolesc. 2016;53:164-168. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.10.005 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
State Government of Victoria. Australia. Child sexual exploitation and grooming. Updated July 31, 2020. Accessed October 16, 2018. https://www.education.vic.gov.au/school/teachers/health/childprotection/Pages/expolitationgrooming.aspx
75.
Van der Kolk  BA.  Developmental trauma disorder.   Psychiatr Ann. 2005;35(5):401-408. doi:10.3928/00485713-20050501-06 Google ScholarCrossref
76.
Van der Kolk  BA.  The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma. Penguin Books; 2015.
77.
Felitti  VJ, Anda  RF, Nordenberg  D,  et al.  Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study.   Am J Prev Med. 1998;14(4):245-258. doi:10.1016/S0749-3797(98)00017-8 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
78.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. Published February 28, 2018. Accessed January 9, 2020. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/summary
79.
Cortina  LM, Kubiak  SP.  Gender and posttraumatic stress: sexual violence as an explanation for women’s increased risk.   J Abnorm Psychol. 2006;115(4):753-759. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.4.753 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
80.
Arora  SK, Shah  D, Chaturvedi  S, Gupta  P.  Defining and measuring vulnerability in young people.   Indian J Community Med. 2015;40(3):193-197. doi:10.4103/0970-0218.158868 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
Rizzo  C, Hunter  H, Lang  D,  et al.  Dating violence victimization and unprotected sex acts among adolescents in mental health treatment.   J Child Fam Stud. 2012;21(5):825-832. doi:10.1007/s10826-011-9543-3 Google ScholarCrossref
82.
Basson  D, Langs  J, Acker  K, Katz  S, Desai  N, Ford  J. Psychotherapy for commercially sexually exploited children: a guide for community-based behavioral health practitioners and agencies. West Coast Children’s Clinic; 2018. Accessed June 11, 2020. https://www.westcoastcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/MH_Treatment_Guide_CSEC.pdf
83.
Kezelman  C, Stavropoulos  P. Practice guidelines for clinical treatment of complex trauma. Blue Knot Foundation; 2019. Accessed February 5, 2020. https://www.blueknot.org.au/Resources/Publications/Practice-Guidelines/Practice-Guidelines-2019
84.
McElwain  A, McGill  J, Savasuk-Luxton  R.  Youth relationship education: a meta-analysis.   Child Youth Serv Rev. 2017;82I:499-507. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.09.036 Google ScholarCrossref
85.
O’Connell  DJ.  Investigating latent trait and life course theories as predictors of recidivism among an offender sample.   J Crim Justice. 2003;31(5):455-467. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(03)00050-3 Google ScholarCrossref
86.
Read  J, Mayne  R.  Understanding the long-term effects of childhood adversities: beyond diagnosis and abuse.   J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2017;10(3):289-297. doi:10.1007/s40653-017-0137-0 PubMedGoogle Scholar
87.
Green  AH.  Child sexual abuse: immediate and long-term effects and intervention.   J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993;32(5):890-902. doi:10.1097/00004583-199309000-00002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
88.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. The long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Published January 2013. Accessed November 20, 2019. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/long-term-effects-child-sexual-abuse/interpersonal-outcomes
89.
Homma  Y, Nicholson  D, Saewyc  EM.  A profile of high school students in rural Canada who exchange sex for substances.   Can J Hum Sex. 2012;21(1):29-40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
90.
Semahegn  A, Torpey  K, Manu  A, Assefa  N, Tesfaye  G, Ankomah  A.  Are interventions focused on gender-norms effective in preventing domestic violence against women in low and lower-middle income countries? a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Reprod Health. 2019;16(1):93. doi:10.1186/s12978-019-0726-5 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
Wyatt  GE, Guthrie  D, Notgrass  CM.  Differential effects of women’s child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual revictimization.   J Consult Clin Psychol. 1992;60(2):167-173. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.60.2.167 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
×