Making sexual and reproductive healthcare environments safe and supportive for disclosure of sexual violence: interview findings from patients and healthcare professionals using a realist approach.

OBJECTIVES: Most people who have experienced sexual violence (SV) will disclose the event(s) to someone. Key recipients of disclosure are those working in healthcare. Telling someone in healthcare about experiences of SV can be an important step in accessing necessary medical care and being signposted to other services. While recognising healthcare settings are a key place for people to seek support, evidence is lacking about how best to create a safe environment for disclosure to take place, how services can make changes to better facilitate this experience and what changes matter most. DESIGN: This study used a realist approach to identify mechanisms that facilitate safe and supported disclosure. Data were generated through three focus groups with Sexual and Reproductive Health Services healthcare professionals in the UK, and one-to-one interviews with survivors of SV who attended healthcare settings (n=18). RESULTS: The analysis found that service users needed to feel empowered and recognised as appropriate candidates for care in the material used to promote sexual healthcare services after SV. This promotional material needs to address rape myths, stereotypes and silence surrounding SV, to ensure that all individuals and especially those from diverse groups are empowered to access care. Three fundamental mechanisms for safe and supported disclosure were identified: being listened to, being validated and having choice. Trauma-informed care was identified as being essential for implementing these mechanisms. Healthcare professionals who were confident and competent regarding enquiry about SV and response to disclosures of SV were key. CONCLUSIONS: The development of services that are conducive to the disclosure of SV is needed to provide better support for those who have experienced SV and are ready to seek support. Use of appropriate promotional material, specific staff training and a trauma-informed approach are key elements to improve services.

Where do those experiencing sexual violence seek help and is routine enquiry acceptable within a sexual healthcare setting? Findings from a population-based survey.

OBJECTIVES: Most sexual violence (SV) remains undisclosed to healthcare professionals. The aims of this study were to identify where support would be sought after SV and whether routine enquiry about SV was acceptable in a sexual healthcare setting. DESIGN: An online population-based survey collected data on a history of SV and preferences on support after SV, in addition to sociodemographic data. Respondents' views on being routinely asked about SV were sought. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This online survey was based in England, UK. There were 2007 respondents. RESULTS: The police were the most frequent first choice for support after experiencing SV (n=520; 25.9%); however, this was less common in individuals in younger age groups (p<0.001) and in those with a history of SV (17.2% vs 29.9%, p<0.001). For the 27.1% (532 of 1960) of respondents who reported a history of SV, the first choice of place for support was Rape Crisis or similar third-sector organisation. The majority of respondents supported routine enquiry about SV during Sexual and Reproductive Health Service (SRHS) consultations (84.4%), although acceptability was significantly lower in older age groups. CONCLUSIONS AND STUDY IMPLICATIONS: A greater awareness of the influence of sociodemographic factors, including ethnicity, age, gender, disability and a history of SV, when planning and delivering services for those who have experienced SV is needed. A history of SV is common in the general population, and a 'one-size-fits-all' approach to encourage disclosure and access to support is unlikely to be optimal. Routine enquiry about SV is highly acceptable in an SRHS setting and likely to improve disclosure when appropriately implemented.

Providing a Supportive Environment for Disclosure of Sexual Violence and Abuse in a Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Setting: A Realist Review.

Background: Sexual and reproductive healthcare services (SRHS) are an environment where medical care relevant to sexual violence and abuse (SV) is available. However, barriers to disclosure need to be overcome to allow timely access to this care. There is limited research identifying and explaining how interventions remove barriers and create a safe and supportive environment for disclosure. The purpose of this review was to develop and refine theories that explain how, for whom and in what context SRHS facilitate disclosure. Methods: Following published realist standards we undertook a realist review. After focussing the review question and identifying key contextual barriers, articles pertaining to these were identified using a traditional systematic database search. This strategy was supplemented with iterative searches. Results: Searches yielded 3172 citations, and 28 articles with sufficient information were included to develop the emerging theories. Four evidence-informed theories were developed proposing ways in which a safe and supportive environment for the disclosure of SV is enabled in SRHS. The theories consider how interventions may overcome barriers surrounding SV disclosure at individual, service-delivery and societal levels. Conclusions: Benefits of SRHS engagement with health promotion and health activism activities to address societal level barriers like lack of service awareness and stereotypic views on SV are presented. Although trauma informed practice and person-centred care were central in creating a safe and supportive environment for disclosure the review found them to be poorly defined in this setting.

A service evaluation of current practices in the assessment of mental-health and referral for support following disclosure of sexual violence.

Sexual violence (SV) has significant impacts on physical, social and psychological wellbeing, with associated mental illness and suicide. Despite no specific guidelines regarding mental health and SV, recommendations suggest all patients should have the opportunity to discuss their mental health and be offered referrals for support. A service evaluation was performed at a large Sexual and Reproductive Health Service (SRHS) with n = 179 patient records reviewed between 30/07/2021 to 01/10/21, who had disclosed SV including n = 83 referred from Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARC). Patient exclusions included duplicates and non-attendances. Data on patient demographics, mental health assessment and referral services were analysed. Referral services included Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVAs), a specialist third sector organisation Rape and Sexual Violence Project (RSVP), and an inhouse specialist SV clinic, Abuse Survivors Clinic (ASC). Demographic analysis demonstrated that 43% of cases were aged over 25 years, 47% were 18-25 and 10% under 18. Females comprised 85% of cases. Mental health history was documented in 91% of SARC referrals, compared to 77% of patients who directly attended SRHS. Current mental health was assessed in 83% of SARC referral patients, compared to 75% of direct SRHS patients. RSVP was offered to 81% of patients, more than any other service. ISVA was offered to 40% of patients, and ASC was offered to 3% of patients. In total, 11% of patients were offered no service referrals. Findings suggest improvements should be made to ensure all patients have discussions around their mental health and are offered support services following SV disclosure. Further research is required to determine whether these changes improve patient outcomes.

Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: It is well-established that experiencing sexual abuse and violence can have a range of detrimental impacts; a wide variety of interventions exist to support survivors in the aftermath. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of survivors receiving such interventions, along with those of their family members, and the professionals who deliver them is important for informing decision making as to what to offer survivors, for developing new interventions, and enhancing their acceptability. OBJECTIVES: This review sought to: 1. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of child and adult survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and their caregivers, regarding psychosocial interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes in terms of benefits, risks/harms and barriers; 2. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of professionals who deliver psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence in terms of perceived benefits, risks/harms and barriers for survivors and their families/caregivers; 3. develop a conceptual understanding of how different factors influence uptake, dropout or completion, and outcomes from psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence; 4. develop a conceptual understanding of how features and types of interventions responded to the needs of different user/survivor groups (e.g. age groups; types of abuse exposure; migrant populations) and contexts (healthcare/therapeutic settings; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)); 5. explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the findings from the linked and related reviews assessing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: In August 2021 we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and nine other databases. We also searched for unpublished reports and qualitative reports of quantitative studies in a linked systematic review, together with reference checking, citation searches and contacting authors and other researchers to identify relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that were linked to a psychosocial intervention aimed at supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence. Eligible studies focused on at least one of three participant groups: survivors of any age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or [dis]ability who had received a psychosocial intervention; their carers, family members or partners; and professionals delivering such interventions. We placed no restrictions in respect of settings, locations, intervention delivery formats or durations. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Six review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified. We extracted data using a form designed for this synthesis, then used this information and an appraisal of data richness and quality in order to stratify the studies using a maximum variation approach. We assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We coded directly onto the sampled papers using NVivo and synthesised data using a thematic synthesis methodology and used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We used a narrative synthesis and matrix model to integrate our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) findings with those of intervention review findings. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 97 eligible studies and sampled 37 of them for our analysis. Most sampled studies were from high-income countries, with four from middle-income and two from low-income countries. In 27 sampled studies, the participants were survivors, in three they were intervention facilitators. Two included all three of our stakeholder groups, and five included two of our groups. The studies explored a wide range of psychosocial interventions, with only one type of intervention explored in more than one study. The review indicates that features associated with the context in which interventions were delivered had an impact on how individuals accessed and experienced interventions. This included organisational features, such as staff turnover, that could influence survivors' engagement with interventions; the setting or location in which interventions were delivered; and the characteristics associated with who delivered the interventions. Studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions typically assess their impact on mental health; however, as well as finding benefits to mental health, our QES found that study participants felt interventions also had positive impacts on their physical health, mood, understanding of trauma, interpersonal relationships and enabled them to re-engage with a wide range of areas in their lives. Participants explained that features of interventions and their contexts that best enabled them to benefit from interventions were also often things that could be a barrier to benefiting from interventions. For example, the relationship with the therapist, when open and warm was a benefit, but if such a relationship could not be achieved, it was a barrier. Survivors' levels of readiness and preparedness to both start and end interventions could have positive (if they were ready) or negative (if they were not) impacts. Study participants identified the potential risks and harms associated with completing interventions but felt that it was important to face and process trauma. Some elements of interventions were specific to the intervention type (e.g. faith-based interventions), or related to an experience of an intervention that held particular relevance to subgroups of survivors (e.g. minority groups); these issues could impact how individuals experienced delivering or receiving interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We had high or moderate confidence in all but one of our review findings. Further research in low- and middle-income settings, with male survivors of sexual abuse and violence and those from minority groups could strengthen the evidence for low and moderate confidence findings. We found that few interventions had published quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Since this QES has highlighted important aspects that could enable interventions to be more suitable for survivors, using a range of methodologies would provide valuable information that could enhance intervention uptake, completion and effectiveness. This study has shown that although survivors often found interventions difficult, they also appreciated that they needed to work through trauma, which they said resulted in a wide range of benefits. Therefore, listening to survivors and providing appropriate interventions, at the right time for them, can make a significant difference to their health and well-being.

Multi-disciplinary Evaluation of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) for better Health (MESARCH): protocol for a 1-year cohort study examining health, well-being and cost outcomes in adult survivors of sexual assault attending SARCs in England.

INTRODUCTION: Sexual violence is commonplace and has serious adverse consequences for physical and mental health. Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) are viewed as a best practice response. Little is known about their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Long-term data on the health and well-being of those who have experienced rape and sexual assault are also lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods protocol for a 1-year cohort study aiming to examine the health and well-being in survivors of sexual violence after attending a SARC in England. Quantitative measures are being taken at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Post-traumatic stress (PTS) is the primary outcome (target N=270 at 12-month follow-up). Secondary measures include anxiety, depression, substance use and sexual health and well-being. Using mixed-effects regression, our main analysis will examine whether variation in SARC service delivery and subsequent mental healthcare is associated with improvement in trauma symptoms after 12 months. An economic analysis will compare costs and outcomes associated with different organisational aspects of SARC service delivery and levels of satisfaction with care. A nested qualitative study will employ narrative analysis of transcribed interviews with 30 cohort participants and 20 survivors who have not experienced SARC services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research is supported by an independent study steering committee, data monitoring and ethics committee and patient and public involvement (PPI) group. A central guiding principle of the research is that being involved should feel diametrically opposed to being a victim of sexual violence, and be experienced as empowering and supportive. Our PPI representatives are instrumental in this, and our wider stakeholders encourage us to consider the health and well-being of all involved. We will disseminate widely through peer-reviewed articles and non-academic channels to maximise the impact of findings on commissioning of services and support for survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN30846825.

An exploration of patient satisfaction with and experience of a sexual abuse survivors clinic.

BACKGROUND: The scale and extent of sexual violence perpetrated in the United Kingdom is being increasingly acknowledged. Support after the initial disclosure is often sought in NHS sexual health clinics. The purpose of this service evaluation was to explore patient satisfaction and experience amongst sexual health clinic attendees who disclosed sexual violence and were subsequently managed in a specialist sexual abuse survivors clinic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with ten service users and interview transcripts were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) to assess users' experiences within the clinic. RESULTS: Participants were all female (aged 18-54 years) and had experienced sexual violence between 2 weeks and 15 years prior to interview, and the majority self-identified as White British (6/10). IPA analysis revealed three distinct overarching themes which were important to this group of patients when evaluating their care: delivery of care in the context of judgement and stigma, aspects of care identified as healing or harmful to recovery, and the importance of the processes of providing care. CONCLUSION: Understanding the experiences of sexual violence survivors in healthcare settings can optimise the provision of patient-oriented care and support. This includes ensuring the service user is in control of the consultation, the risks of re-traumatisation are minimised, and individuals receive relevant and accurate information but in a manageable volume and format.

How, why, for whom and in what context, do sexual health clinics provide an environment for safe and supported disclosure of sexual violence: protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Supporting people subjected to sexual violence includes provision of sexual and reproductive healthcare. There is a need to ensure an environment for safe and supported disclosure of sexual violence in these clinical settings. The purpose of this research is to gain a deeper understanding of how, why, for whom and in what circumstances safe and supported disclosure occurs in sexual health services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To understand how safe and supported disclosure of sexual violence works within sexual health services a realist review will be undertaken with the following steps: (1) Focussing of the review including a scoping literature search and guidance from an advisory group. (2) Developing the initial programme theories and a search strategy using context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) configurations. (3) Selection, data extraction and appraisal based on relevance and rigour. (4) Data analysis and synthesis to further develop and refine programme theory, CMO configurations with consideration of middle-range and substantive theories. DATA ANALYSIS: A realist logic of analysis will be used to align data from each phase of the review, with CMO configurations being developed. Programme theories will be sought from the review that can be further tested in the field. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham, and has Health Research Authority approval. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge exchange with stakeholders, publications in peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and formal and informal reports. In addition, as part of a doctoral study, the findings will be tested in multisite case studies. PROSPERO REGISTRATION DETAILS: CRD4201912998. Dates of the planned realist review, from protocol design to completion, January 2019 to July 2020.

Measuring experience and outcomes in patients reporting sexual violence who attend a healthcare setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining perspectives from those seeking healthcare after sexual violence on care and how it is delivered is important. OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify any existing patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) for patients attending healthcare services after sexual violence. Also, to identify key themes regarded by patients as priorities for delivering a high-quality service. DESIGN: Systematic review (PROSPERO registration RD42016050297). DATA SOURCES: Eight electronic bibliographic databases from inception to March 2017. 'Grey' literature also searched. Search words included patient view, patient experience, PROM/PREM, sexual violence, rape. REVIEW METHODS: Studies of any design, with participants of any gender and aged 13 years or older were included; studies only assessing the views of service providers were excluded. Appraisal tools assessed for study quality. Healthcare outcome data were assessed across the quantitative studies and key experiences across qualitative papers; Framework Analysis was used to synthesise the qualitative studies. RESULTS: From 4153 identified papers, 20 fulfilled criteria for inclusion: 10 qualitative, 8 quantitative and 2 mixed methods. No validated measure of assessing patient experience or outcome was identified. The synthesis of qualitative studies led to the assignment of two overarching themes around the importance of patient-focused and trauma-focused communication, and of care which enhances patient empowerment. A paucity of research within certain patient groups who experience sexual violence, in particular men and LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans) patients was noted. LIMITATIONS: A broad definition of 'healthcare setting' incorporated a wide variety of venues limiting the applicability of findings in specific settings. CONCLUSION: A validated and standardised approach to assess patient experience and outcome in healthcare settings after sexual violence is needed. Themes identified should be incorporated into PROM or PREM development. The review also suggests the need for a change in approach towards those who attend for healthcare after sexual violence to ensure patient autonomy.

Rapid onset and progression of myelopathy following an STI: a case for screening?

Human T lymphotropic virus type 1 (HTLV-1) is recognised as an STI with serious manifestations of the disease in approximately 10% of those infected. This case report is the first to describe the short interval from sexual acquisition of HTLV-1 to the onset of HTLV-1-associated myelopathy and rapid progression to spastic paraparesis. The number of adult infections in the UK per annum is unknown, but surveillance data indicate that around 30% of newly diagnosed infections are occurring in persons born in the UK, rather than in migrants from HTLV-1-endemic regions. Despite this, and despite the risk of chronic debilitating disease, HTLV-1 infection is not part of sexual health screening in the UK, with the consequence that patients requesting sexual health screens are not informed of their carrier status and transmission from asymptomatic carriers to the partners will continue.

Emerging sexually transmitted viral infections: 1. Review of Ebola virus disease.

This is the first in a series of articles reviewing four viral infections, Ebola virus, Zika virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus, type 1 and hepatitis C virus, with an emphasis on recent advances in our understanding of their sexual transmission. With current day speed and ease of travel it is important for staff in sexual healthcare services to know and understand these infections when patients present to them and also to be able to advise those travelling to endemic regions. Following the recent resurgence in West Africa, this first article looks at Ebola virus disease (EVD). EVD has a high mortality rate and, of note, has been detected in the semen of those who have cleared the virus from their blood and have clinically recovered from the disease. As the result of emerging data, the WHO now recommends safe sex practices for all male survivors of EVD for 12 months after the onset of the disease or after having had two consecutive negative tests of semen specimens for the virus. This review provides an up-to-date summary of what is currently known about EVD and its implications for sexual health practice.

The Significance of Isolated Reactive Treponemal Enzyme Immunoassay in the Diagnosis of Early Syphilis.

BACKGROUND: The Treponemal test algorithm for syphilis screening is widely used. A diagnostic challenge between identifying early syphilis versus a false positive signal occurs in cases where the treponemal enzyme immunoassay (EIA) is reactive and confirmatory T. pallidum particle agglutination assay is negative. We investigated the diagnostic outcome of isolated reactive EIA in patients attending a sexual health clinic. METHODS: Results of syphilis serology tests carried out at Birmingham Whittall Street Clinic between August 10, 2010, and November 31, 2014, were reviewed. Cases with isolated EIA were routinely invited for repeat syphilis serology. Outcomes of patients with isolated EIA were reviewed and the proportion with confirmed positive syphilis serology on their repeat test identified. The number of isolated EIA cases needed to retest to identify 1 case of early syphilis was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 121,724 syphilis screening tests were performed. Among the 1561 individual patients with reactive EIA sera, 316 (20% of total reactive tests) had isolated reactive EIA. Repeat syphilis serology results of 163 patients were reviewed; 106 patients remained with isolated reactive EIA, 50 had negative EIA test and 7 (4.3%) had confirmed reactive EIA. Of the 7 patients, 2 had evidence of early syphilis infection. The number of isolated EIA needed to retest to identify 1 case of early syphilis was 81.5 (95% confidence interval, 22.9-671.4). CONCLUSIONS: Routine recall of patients with isolated EIA sera is not warranted. Risk of acquisition or presence of early syphilis should be assessed independently and irrespective of a negative syphilis screening test or isolated EIA.