Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in the 'Dunkelfeld': A Public Health Imperative Requiring Context-Appropriate Science-A Response to König (2025).

IF 1.5
K M Beier, M von Heyden, J Nentzl, T Amelung
{"title":"Preventing Child Sexual Abuse in the 'Dunkelfeld': A Public Health Imperative Requiring Context-Appropriate Science-A Response to König (2025).","authors":"K M Beier, M von Heyden, J Nentzl, T Amelung","doi":"10.1007/s10935-025-00859-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>König's (2025) critique of the German Prevention Project Dunkelfeld mis-applies standards developed for adjudicated (\"Hellfeld\") offenders to a voluntary, non-forensic prevention setting. We clarify why context-appropriate science is essential for evaluating interventions that reach individuals whose child sexual abuse (CSA) behaviour remains hidden from the justice system. First, the large gap between official recidivism and high self-reported offending is not methodological failure but strong evidence of the well-documented \"dark figure\" of undetected sexual crime. Second, Germany's unique legal framework (§ 65d SGB V; § 203 StGB) enables confidential, face-to-face treatment and pharmacological options that are infeasible in jurisdictions with mandatory reporting, making Dunkelfeld programmes a public-health imperative. Third, forensic risk tools and the CODC (2007) guidelines lack demonstrated validity for voluntary help-seekers; carefully collected self-report and dynamic risk-factor change therefore constitute the only context-relevant outcome metrics. Fourth, concerns about iatrogenic effects must be interpreted through the Risk-Need-Responsivity lens: specialised, multi-modal interventions such as the Berlin Dissexuality Therapy (BEDIT) show beneficial changes in cognitive and behavioural risk markers, mirroring findings from recent RCTs of internet-delivered CBT and pharmacological therapy. Finally, all German model sites are currently undergoing an independent, multi-year evaluation commissioned by the national health-insurance association. We conclude that preventing CSA and CSAM requires embracing rigorous yet context-sensitive methodologies rather than importing standards that overlook the dark figure. The ethical imperative to prevent harm and offer help to those at risk persists even acknowledging that no intervention guarantees universal success, demanding our most contextually sensitive scientific efforts.</p>","PeriodicalId":73905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of prevention (2022)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of prevention (2022)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-025-00859-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

König's (2025) critique of the German Prevention Project Dunkelfeld mis-applies standards developed for adjudicated ("Hellfeld") offenders to a voluntary, non-forensic prevention setting. We clarify why context-appropriate science is essential for evaluating interventions that reach individuals whose child sexual abuse (CSA) behaviour remains hidden from the justice system. First, the large gap between official recidivism and high self-reported offending is not methodological failure but strong evidence of the well-documented "dark figure" of undetected sexual crime. Second, Germany's unique legal framework (§ 65d SGB V; § 203 StGB) enables confidential, face-to-face treatment and pharmacological options that are infeasible in jurisdictions with mandatory reporting, making Dunkelfeld programmes a public-health imperative. Third, forensic risk tools and the CODC (2007) guidelines lack demonstrated validity for voluntary help-seekers; carefully collected self-report and dynamic risk-factor change therefore constitute the only context-relevant outcome metrics. Fourth, concerns about iatrogenic effects must be interpreted through the Risk-Need-Responsivity lens: specialised, multi-modal interventions such as the Berlin Dissexuality Therapy (BEDIT) show beneficial changes in cognitive and behavioural risk markers, mirroring findings from recent RCTs of internet-delivered CBT and pharmacological therapy. Finally, all German model sites are currently undergoing an independent, multi-year evaluation commissioned by the national health-insurance association. We conclude that preventing CSA and CSAM requires embracing rigorous yet context-sensitive methodologies rather than importing standards that overlook the dark figure. The ethical imperative to prevent harm and offer help to those at risk persists even acknowledging that no intervention guarantees universal success, demanding our most contextually sensitive scientific efforts.

在“邓克尔菲尔德”预防儿童性虐待:一项公共卫生的当务之急,需要与环境相适应的科学——对König(2025)的回应。
König(2025)对德国预防项目Dunkelfeld的批评错误地将为裁决(“Hellfeld”)罪犯制定的标准应用于自愿的,非法医预防设置。我们阐明了为什么情境科学对于评估涉及儿童性虐待(CSA)行为仍未被司法系统发现的个体的干预措施至关重要。首先,官方公布的累犯率和自我报告的高犯罪率之间的巨大差距并不是方法论上的失败,而是有充分证据的未被发现的性犯罪“黑影”的有力证据。第二,德国独特的法律框架(§65d SGB V;《StGB》第203条)使保密的面对面治疗和药物选择成为可能,这在强制报告的司法管辖区是不可行的,使邓克尔菲尔德方案成为公共卫生的当务之急。第三,法医风险工具和CODC(2007)指南缺乏对自愿寻求帮助者的有效性证明;因此,仔细收集的自我报告和动态风险因素变化构成了唯一与环境相关的结果指标。第四,对医源性影响的关注必须通过风险-需求-反应的视角来解释:专业的、多模式的干预措施,如柏林失性行为治疗(BEDIT),显示出认知和行为风险标记的有益变化,反映了最近网络提供的CBT和药物治疗的随机对照试验的结果。最后,所有德国示范点目前正在接受国家健康保险协会委托进行的独立的多年期评估。我们的结论是,预防CSA和CSAM需要采用严格但对上下文敏感的方法,而不是引入忽视黑影的标准。即使承认没有任何干预措施能保证普遍成功,但防止伤害和向处于危险中的人提供帮助的伦理责任仍然存在,这要求我们做出对环境最敏感的科学努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信