In Reply Van Ouytsel aptly underscores areas within the sexting literature that must be addressed to move the field forward. As emphasized in our work1,2 as well as in the work of others,3 a unified conceptualization and approach to researching sexting is needed and, in this reply, we take the opportunity to provide methodologic recommendations for future research in a summative and distilled format. Through the process of reviewing hundreds of studies, meta-analyses provide the notable advantage of detecting collective shortcomings within a research area. Having completed 2 meta-analyses on youth sexting,1,2 the following methodologic recommendations are provided based on a comprehensive review of this literature.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Mori C, Temple JR, Madigan S. A Decade of Sexting Research—Reply. JAMA Pediatr. 2020;174(2):204–205. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.4565
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.