What about the family in intrafamilial child sexual abuse? There is significantly more familial dysfunction in families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse than in other families

IF 11.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2026-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-11 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102690
Frederica M. Martijn , Nicholas Blagden , Thom Baguley , Elisabeth J. Leroux , Jennifer Mackay , Michael C. Seto
{"title":"What about the family in intrafamilial child sexual abuse? There is significantly more familial dysfunction in families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse than in other families","authors":"Frederica M. Martijn ,&nbsp;Nicholas Blagden ,&nbsp;Thom Baguley ,&nbsp;Elisabeth J. Leroux ,&nbsp;Jennifer Mackay ,&nbsp;Michael C. Seto","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2025.102690","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There are important scientific gaps in the understanding of the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse perpetration and victimisation. We present the findings of a systematic review and a comparative (<em>k</em> = 18) and prevalence (<em>k</em> = 39) meta-analysis of intrafamilial child sexual abuse and familial dysfunction. We compared 3676 families in which intrafamilial child sexual abuse had occurred with 1120 families in which extrafamilial and 1145 families in which no (intrafamilial) child sexual abuse had occurred. We found that families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more familial dysfunction across all domains compared to comparison families, with odds ratios ranging from 1.10 (lower educational attainment) to 5.06 (parental alcohol abuse). Families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more socio-ecological stressors (e.g., homelessness), disorganised family structures (e.g., non-intact parental structures), dysfunctional relationships (e.g., spousal conflict), nonsexual abuse (e.g., exposure to intimate partner violence), and parental vulnerabilities (e.g., mental health and substance abuse problems) than the comparison families. The prevalence meta-analysis indicated that almost half of the families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse also experienced one or more co-occurring forms of nonsexual abuse – 48 % physical abuse, 37 % emotional abuse, 34 % neglect, and 42 % exposure to intimate partner violence – and that this was significantly higher than the comparison families. The results of this meta-analysis highlight gaps and directions for further research on the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse, and the aetiology and prognosis of polyvictimisation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"123 ","pages":"Article 102690"},"PeriodicalIF":11.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735825001576","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There are important scientific gaps in the understanding of the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse perpetration and victimisation. We present the findings of a systematic review and a comparative (k = 18) and prevalence (k = 39) meta-analysis of intrafamilial child sexual abuse and familial dysfunction. We compared 3676 families in which intrafamilial child sexual abuse had occurred with 1120 families in which extrafamilial and 1145 families in which no (intrafamilial) child sexual abuse had occurred. We found that families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more familial dysfunction across all domains compared to comparison families, with odds ratios ranging from 1.10 (lower educational attainment) to 5.06 (parental alcohol abuse). Families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse experienced more socio-ecological stressors (e.g., homelessness), disorganised family structures (e.g., non-intact parental structures), dysfunctional relationships (e.g., spousal conflict), nonsexual abuse (e.g., exposure to intimate partner violence), and parental vulnerabilities (e.g., mental health and substance abuse problems) than the comparison families. The prevalence meta-analysis indicated that almost half of the families with intrafamilial child sexual abuse also experienced one or more co-occurring forms of nonsexual abuse – 48 % physical abuse, 37 % emotional abuse, 34 % neglect, and 42 % exposure to intimate partner violence – and that this was significantly higher than the comparison families. The results of this meta-analysis highlight gaps and directions for further research on the role of familial dysfunction in intrafamilial child sexual abuse, and the aetiology and prognosis of polyvictimisation.
家庭内部儿童性虐待中的家庭呢?有家庭内部儿童性虐待的家庭比其他家庭有更多的家庭功能障碍
在理解家庭功能障碍在家庭内儿童性虐待发生和受害中的作用方面存在重要的科学空白。我们提出了一项关于家庭内儿童性虐待和家庭功能障碍的系统综述和比较(k = 18)和流行(k = 39)荟萃分析的发现。我们比较了3676个发生过家庭内儿童性虐待的家庭与1120个发生过家庭外儿童性虐待的家庭和1145个没有发生过(家庭内)儿童性虐待的家庭。我们发现,与比较家庭相比,有家庭内部儿童性虐待的家庭在所有领域都经历了更多的家庭功能障碍,比值比从1.10(教育程度较低)到5.06(父母酗酒)不等。与比较家庭相比,有家庭内部儿童性虐待的家庭经历了更多的社会生态压力因素(如无家可归)、无组织的家庭结构(如不完整的父母结构)、功能失调的关系(如配偶冲突)、非性虐待(如暴露于亲密伴侣暴力)和父母脆弱性(如精神健康和药物滥用问题)。流行的荟萃分析表明,几乎一半的家庭内部儿童性虐待的家庭也经历了一种或多种形式的非性虐待并存- 48%的身体虐待,37%的情感虐待,34%的忽视,42%的接触亲密伴侣暴力-这明显高于比较家庭。本荟萃分析的结果突出了家庭功能障碍在家庭内儿童性虐待中的作用以及多重受害的病因和预后方面的差距和进一步研究的方向。
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
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
×
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
小红书