Skip to main content
Browse Subject Areas

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The identification and treatment of mental health and substance misuse problems in sexual assault services: A systematic review

  • Theodora Stefanidou,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom

  • Elizabeth Hughes,

    Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

  • Katherine Kester,

    Roles Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom

  • Amanda Edmondson,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

  • Rabiya Majeed-Ariss,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

  • Christine Smith,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

  • Steven Ariss,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Centre for Assistive Technology and Connected Healthcare (CATCH) and School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom

  • Charlie Brooker,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Centre for Criminology and Sociology, Royal Holloway University of London, Surrey, United Kingdom

  • Gail Gilchrist,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Section of Women’s Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

  • Sarah Kendal,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

  • Mike Lucock,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Human and Health Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom

  • Fay Maxted,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation The Survivors Trust, Rugby, Warwickshire, United Kingdom

  • Concetta Perot,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliations Section of Women’s Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom, Bristol Medical School: Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom

  • Rebekah Shallcross,

    Roles Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation School of Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

  • Kylee Trevillion,

    Roles Funding acquisition, Investigation, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Section of Women’s Mental Health, Health Service and Population Research Department, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom

  •  [ ... ],
  • Brynmor Lloyd-Evans

    Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

    Affiliation Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom

  • [ view all ]
  • [ view less ]



Specialist sexual assault services, which collect forensic evidence and offer holistic healthcare to people following sexual assault, have been established internationally. In England, these services are called sexual assault referral centres (SARCs). Mental health and substance misuse problems are common among SARC attendees, but little is known about how SARCs should address these needs. This review aims to seek and synthesise evidence regarding approaches to identification and support for mental health and substance misuse problems in SARCs and corresponding services internationally; empirical evidence regarding effective service models; and stakeholders’ views and policy recommendations about optimal SARC practice.


A systematic review was undertaken. PsycINFO, MEDLINE, IBSS and CINAHL were searched from 1975 to August 2018. A web-based search up to December 2018 was also conducted to identify government and expert guidelines on SARCs. Quality assessment and narrative synthesis were conducted.


We included 107 papers. We found that identification based on clinical judgement, supportive counselling and referral to other services without active follow-up were the most common approaches. Evaluations of interventions for post-rape psychopathology in attendees of sexual assault services provided mixed evidence of moderate quality. Very little evidence was found regarding interventions or support for substance misuse. Stakeholders emphasised the importance of accessibility, flexibility, continuity of care, in-house psychological support, staff trained in mental health as well as specialist support for LGBT groups and people with learning difficulties. Guidelines suggested that SARCs should assess for mental health and substance misuse and provide in-house emotional support, but the extent and nature of support were not clarified. Both stakeholders and guidelines recommended close partnership between sexual assault services and local counselling services.


This review suggests that there is big variation in the mental health and substance misuse provision both across and within different sexual assault service models. We found no robust evidence about how sexual assault services can achieve good mental health and substance misuse outcomes for service users. Clearer guidance for service planners and commissioners, informed by robust evidence about optimal service organisations and pathways, is required.

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018119706


Sexual violence

Sexual violence affects many people worldwide, and most commonly women. It encompasses acts of rape, sexual assault and abuse, with the terms often used interchangeably [1]. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that, globally, 35% of women have experienced physical and/or sexual violence; with most of this violence being perpetrated by their intimate partner (IPV) [2, 3]. In England and Wales, it is estimated that 25% of women and 5% of men have experienced some type of sexual violence in their lifetime [4], and the National Survey of Sexual Health Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3) [5] reports that 10% of women and 1% of men experienced non volitional sex in their lifetime. Although, women are more likely to experience sexual violence than men, those from specific populations such as men who have sex with men (MSM), military veterans, prisoners and people in hospital settings are at higher risk than men in the general population [6].

Sexual violence has a significant and often long-term impact on physical and mental health. It is associated with the development of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), drug and substance misuse, self-harm, increased risk of suicide, as well as relationship problems and long-term mental illness [79]. Those with a history of sexual abuse have higher rates of hazardous drug and alcohol use than the general population [10], and women who experienced IPV are significantly more likely to experience adverse mental health consequences, including suicide attempts and emotional distress [1, 11]. Moreover, survivors of sexual abuse, and specifically those with a history of child sexual abuse and poor mental health, are at great risk of using sex as self-injury and being revicitmised later in life [1214].

Trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapies (CBT) have the strongest evidence base in addressing PTSD and other psychopathologies among sexual assault survivors [1517]. The 2018 guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommend individual trauma-focused CBT within one month of the traumatic event for adults with acute stress disorder or clinically important symptoms of PTSD and the use of validated screening tools [15]. People with PTSD and comorbid substance misuse should not be excluded from treatment [15], and there is meta-analytic evidence suggesting that trauma-focused therapies delivered alongside an intervention for substance misuse can be of benefit [18].

Sexual assault services

Specialised services for people following sexual assault, which can collect forensic evidence, and address service users’ physical and emotional health needs, have been established in several countries. These have various names and commissioning structures. They are commonly based in community or hospital centres, provide forensic and physical healthcare, and often link to other health and support services [19, 20].

Different models of sexual assault service provision internationally have been identified [19] and are summarised in Box 1 [19, 21, 22]. Service provision typically varies within countries, with disparity associated with an urban/rural division and differences in legislation and funding [20, 23, 24]. In England and Wales, specialist sexual assault services are called Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) and have been developed to address shortcomings in the previous medico legal response to sexual violence [20, 24]. SARCs provide holistic support; including forensic medical examinations, health checks, safeguarding and risk assessments, psychosocial support and access to services for mental health and substance misuse problems[22]. The first SARC opened at St Mary’s Hospital in Manchester in 1986 [24], and since then several SARCs have been established across the country.

Box 1: International models of specialist sexual assault services.

Sexual assault referral centres (SARCs) are the main providers of sexual assault services in the UK. SARCs are based in a hospital or community setting and provide holistic support, including forensic medical examinations, health checks, safeguarding and risk assessments, psychosocial support and access to services for mental health and substance misuse problems.

The sexual assault response team-sexual assault nurse examiner (SART-SANE) model is the predominant model in the US and has been modelled in Australia, Canada and the UK. The SANE programs consist of specially trained forensic nurses that provide clinical and forensic support to the victim. SANEs usually operate as part of interdisciplinary teams known as SARTs.

Sexual assault/domestic violence care and treatment centres (SA/DVCTCs) are hospital based centres that provide 24/7 support to victims of sexual and domestic violence in Canada.

In Australia, specialist services for victims are provided by the sexual assault resource teams (SARC) in the Western part of the country, and the sexual assault services (SAS) in New South Wales.

The specialist sexual violence services (SSVS) are non-government organisations that consist the main provider of specialist services to victims of sexual violence in New Zealand.

Sexual assault centres (SACs) aim to provide comprehensive care to victims and can be found in most Nordic countries.

Thuthuzela care centres (TCCs) are ‘One-Stop Shop’ centres in hospitals or communities that provide healthcare and forensic support to victims of rape in South Africa.

The Child Advocacy Centre (CAC) model has been adopted in the US and Europe and provides holistic support at a stand-alone facility to children that have been sexually assaulted.

Sexual assault services and mental health

Research from England suggests that approximately 40% of SARC service users are already known to mental health services and many have serious mental health problems[25, 26]. However, assessments of mental health and substance use are often not conducted in SARCs and there is a lack of clear pathways from SARCs into mental health and drug and alcohol services [25], despite policy guidance and government-provided service specifications that attendees of SARCs should have access to mental health and psychological therapies [22].

There is limited evidence about how Sexual Assault Services can best address attendees’ mental health and substance misuse needs. A 2005 review [27] of the effectiveness of Sexual Assault Response Team-Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs in the US found tentative evidence suggesting that SANEs are effective in promoting the psychological recovery of survivors. However, the review had significant shortcomings as all three included studies were uncontrolled with two out of three being published more than ten years ago. A comprehensive search strategy and critical appraisal of included studies were also lacking.


To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining what evidence is available regarding mental health and substance misuse provision in sexual assault services, including SARCs in the UK and corresponding services internationally. To meet the current gap in knowledge, our review addressed the following three questions:

  1. What are the approaches to prevention, identification and treatment of mental health and substance misuse problems in different sexual assault service models?
  2. What models of treatment, service delivery and organisation in sexual assault services are effective regarding service users’ mental health and substance misuse outcomes?
  3. What are stakeholders’ views and policy recommendations about how sexual assault services should prevent, identify and treat mental health and substance misuse problems for people following a sexual assault?

The review follows guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination on undertaking reviews in health care [28] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA statement) [29]. A PRISMA checklist for this review is provided in the data supplement (S1 File).

Materials and methods

Protocol and registration

The review protocol was registered at PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews at the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York (CRD42018119706) [30].

Inclusion criteria

We included studies, which met the following criteria:

  1. Services: We included studies of sexual assault services, if they offered (1) specialist support, within a single service, to adults and/or children who have experienced sexual assault, and (2) provided healthcare provision and the collection of forensic evidence and legal statements. We excluded services that did not fulfil both these functions, even if they provided some support to people who had experienced sexual assault.
  2. Publication types: Both peer-reviewed and grey literature were eligible.
    1. For our first review question, we included publications that provided any information about how a sexual assault service prevented, identified or treated mental health and substance misuse problems, whether or not this was the main focus of the paper. Journal articles, PhD theses, conference proceedings and book chapters were eligible for inclusion.
    2. For our second review question, we included quantitative comparison studies of any design, which compared sexual assault services with standard care; different sexual assault service models; or two different interventions/packages of care within a sexual assault service.
    3. For our third review question, we included qualitative interviews, focus groups or surveys of sexual assault service stakeholders. These included any report of participants’ views or recommendations regarding the prevention, identification and treatment of mental health and substance misuse problems in sexual assault services. We also considered guidelines from government or expert bodies specifying mental health and substance misuse provision in the UK SARC model only.
  3. Participants: Not applicable to review question one. Review question two: adult and/or child service users of sexual assault services. Review question three: Sexual assault services ‘stakeholders including service users, staff and other professionals working closely with sexual assault services.
  4. Intervention: Not applicable to review question one and three. For review question two, the intervention could be a sexual assault service; a sexual assault service model; an intervention/package of care within a sexual assault service designed to improve mental health and substance misuse outcomes.
  5. Comparison: Not applicable to review question one and three. For review question two, the comparison could be standard care, however defined; a different sexual assault service model; or a different intervention/ package of care within a sexual assault service designed to improve mental health and substance misuse outcomes.
  6. Outcomes: Not applicable to review question one and three. Review question two: any measure evaluating mental health, and substance misuse outcomes at end of sexual assault service treatment or longer-term follow-up; and/or use mental health inpatient or crisis services at follow-up.

Due to limited resources, we excluded literature written in languages other than English if an English version was not available.

Search strategy

Electronic searches were conducted on the following bibliographic databases: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, IBSS and CINAHL, combining text words for SARCs and sexual assault services adapted from an international overview of sexual violence services [19] (S2 File). We consulted a healthcare librarian and piloted our search to ensure all key studies were retrieved. Relevant medical subheadings (MeSH terms) were not identified, and so not used in our search. To ensure all relevant records were retrieved, we did not limit the searches by adding mental health and substance misuse terms. We restricted our search to humans and we set 1975 as the lower date restriction because the SANE model was introduced in the mid-1970s, and the SARC model was introduced in 1986 [20, 27]. The last search was conducted in August 2018.

We searched grey literature and conference proceedings in Google Scholar and Zetoc databases, and for SARC policy guidance in the English Primary Care Commissioning, Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England websites. The last web-based search was conducted in December 2018. Finally, we consulted experts in the field to identify any additional records.

Two members of the review team (TS, AE) piloted the selection strategy. All retrieved records were independently screened by two reviewers (TS, CS and AE, KK). Any disagreements were resolved by consensus, and when necessary by involving a third reviewer (BLE). Title and abstract screening was carried out in Endnote X8, and full-text screening in Covidence.

Data extraction

A data extraction schedule was adapted from the Cochrane Collaboration data collection form for intervention reviews: RCTs and non-RCTs, and was piloted by two member of the team (TS, AE). Data extraction was undertaken by a member of the team (CB, KT, GG, SA, EH, AE, CS, SK, RMA, BLE, DS) with 10% of the extraction being checked by another team member (TS). For review question one, we retrieved information about first author, year of publication, country, study design, setting, and mental health and substance misuse provision in sexual assault services. For review question two, data were extracted on first author, year of publication, country, study design, number of participants, setting, service characteristics, evaluated outcomes, and results. For review question three, we extracted the study characteristics as above, and the main findings/recommendations about mental health and substance misuse provision in sexual assault services. We contacted authors for any information not available in the published papers.

Quality assessment

The quality of included studies for review questions two and three was assessed by a member of the team (TS, KK or RMA) using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [31]. This is an established assessment tool, which can be used with quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods primary studies. The MMAT quality score ranges from zero (low quality) to five (high quality). Quality scores were reported and considered in the narrative synthesis of the evidence, but papers were not excluded on account of low-quality scores.

Data synthesis

A narrative synthesis was undertaken, following ESRC guidelines [32]. For review question one, we first identified papers that described actual arrangements within specific sexual assault services and extracted data from these. Information pertaining to mental health and substance misuse was initially extracted verbatim, then summarised. Following team discussion, we distinguished three domains of mental health and substance misuse approaches (identification, support and referral) and, with reference to an existing classification of sexual assault services [19], we identified from included papers different types of service provision within each domain. Lastly, we explored commonalities and variations in practice regarding mental health and substance misuse between and within different sexual assault service models.

For review question two, we described the sexual assault services’ interventions, participants, study design and outcomes. Due to anticipated heterogeneity in all these fields, quantitative synthesis of results was not considered. In a narrative summary, we considered the consistency and strength of evidence regarding the effectiveness of different sexual assault service models and interventions.

For review question three, we summarised views or recommendations made by sexual assault stakeholders and SARC policy makers: i) directly about identification or support with mental health or substance misuse; and ii) about more general features of service provision with relevance to mental health and substance misuse. We considered differences in perspective between stakeholder groups and policy sources.

Finally, we compared and synthesised findings from all three review questions. We considered the overall evidence about how to address mental health and substance misuse needs in sexual assault services with reference to the extent and quality of the empirical evidence, and the degree of consistency in findings from interviews with stakeholders and policy guidelines.


Study selection

The bibliographic database search yielded 3,774 citations and the web-based search yielded 965. Another 12 records were identified through consultation with experts. After duplicates were removed, abstracts and summaries from 3,957 publications were screened for eligibility. After screening, 107 full-text papers were included in the review. A PRISMA diagram describing study screening and selection is provided in Fig 1.

Study characteristics

Of the 107 papers included in the review, some were relevant to more than one of our three review questions. For review question one, we included 78 publications providing information on how sexual assault services address mental health and substance misuse [20, 2426, 33106]; for review question two, we included 6 papers of five trial evaluations [84, 89, 92, 107109]; and for review question three, we included 34 studies on stakeholders’ views [20, 25, 34, 37, 44, 53, 54, 60, 62, 72, 78, 82, 86, 90, 93, 94, 97, 110126] and 10 policy documents [20, 22, 127134]. Papers were published between 1979 and 2019 and covered services around the world.

Quality assessment was conducted for evaluation studies included in review question two, and qualitative studies included in review question three. The median MMAT quality score for evaluation studies was three, which indicates studies of moderate quality. Five of these obtained a score of three (moderate quality), and one study obtained a score of four (moderately high quality). The main quality concerns were related to unreported or poorly performed randomisation, and low follow-up rates. Studies of stakeholders’ views had a median MMAT quality score of five, which indicates studies of comparatively high methodological quality. Twenty-one of these obtained a score of five (high quality), eight a score of four (moderately high quality), two a score of three (moderate quality), and three studies scored two or less (low quality). A breakdown of the MMAT scores for each study is reported in the data supplement (S3 File)

Q1: Approaches to mental health and substance misuse

We found 78 papers [20, 2426, 33106] published between 1979 and 2019 that provided information on how sexual assault services identify and treat mental health and substance misuse problems. Of these, 64 were journal articles [2426, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 4158, 60, 61, 6367, 6985, 8892, 9496, 98100, 102, 105, 106], and 14 were retrieved through grey literature searches [20, 35, 37, 40, 59, 62, 68, 86, 87, 93, 97, 101, 103, 104]. The included papers described services from the UK, US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Nordic Countries, Africa, Turkey, Israel and Hawaii. The identified mental health and substance misuse approaches are summarised by service model in Table 1. Services that we were unable to assign to a specific service model are grouped as “other services”. See S4 File for a full list of included studies and description of the reported approaches to mental health and substance misuse within each sexual assault service model.

Table 1. Approaches to mental health and substance misuse by service model.


32 papers provided information on how sexual assault services identify mental health and substance misuse problems among service users [25, 26, 3540, 42, 45, 48, 49, 52, 54, 5658, 64, 65, 67, 80, 81, 84, 86, 87, 93, 95, 101, 104106]. Some sexual assault services were described in two or more papers: our 32 included papers described 29 different sexual assault services. Different approaches were:

  1. Unstructured or unspecified assessment: Sexual assault services were reported as seeking to identify mental health and substance misuse problems, but the methods used were either unspecified or unstructured. Unstructured approaches included using professional judgement, casual observation, medical history taking, relying on self-reported disclosure, and one-off questions about mental health. Unstructured/unspecified assessment was the most commonly reported identification method (n = 14) across all included services [25, 26, 35, 36, 3840, 48, 49, 56, 84, 93, 101, 104], especially in SARCs in the UK and SANE-SARTs in the US.
  2. Structured assessment (not using validated measures), where information on mental health and substance misuse was gathered consistently using a standard set of questions, but this was not reported to involve the use of a validated assessment or screening tool(s). The structured assessment approach mainly involved assessing: self-harm, suicidal ideation, PTSD, and mental health history. This was the second most commonly reported identification approach (n = 10) and it was found to be the most common method in CACs in Turkey and the US, and Australian SARCs/SASs [37, 54, 58, 64, 67, 80, 81, 86, 87, 106].
  3. Structured assessment using validated standardised measures, where information on mental health and substance misuse was gathered consistently through a structured assessment using validated screening tools. Identified measures used in services were: UCLA PTSD trauma screen [135], Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children (TSCC) [136], Trauma Screening Questionnaire (TSQ) [137], Children’s Revised Impact of Event Scale (CRIES) [138], strengths and difficulties questionnaire [139], a validated measure of problem substance use based on the DSM-IV criteria, Child’s Report of Parenting Behaviour Inventory [140]. The use of validated measures was the least commonly described approach (n = 5), only reported in CACs, Nordic SACs, and Other services [45, 52, 57, 65, 105].

There was also variation on the time point at which services screened for mental health and substance misuse. Some were reported to assess risk and obtain mental health history at the first contact with the service, others at a later follow-up point, and others at both times. We found more variation within than between service models.

In-house support.

57 papers describing 48 different sexual assault services described in-house support for mental health and substance misuse problems [20, 24, 26, 3342, 46, 47, 50, 51, 5356, 58, 59, 6163, 6568, 70, 7278, 81, 83, 85, 87, 8999, 101, 103105]. Reported approaches were categorised as: i) immediate emotional support only at first contact, ii) follow-up care: counselling, iii) follow-up care: structured psychological interventions, iv) unspecified type of emotional support, v) no emotional support provided.

The most reported type of support across all service models (except TCC) was the provision of counselling as part of the follow-up care (n = 32) [20, 24, 26, 3436, 38, 4042, 46, 47, 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 6568, 7478, 81, 83, 85, 87, 8991, 9498, 101, 103]. We grouped as counselling any type of counselling that was not specified as a structured psychological therapy. That included crisis, supportive and unspecified types of counselling provided by a member of the sexual assault team. The provision of structured psychological interventions as part of the in-house follow-up care was reported only in five papers specifying services in Nordic countries, Australia, New Zealand and CACs [37, 39, 63, 73, 99]. These interventions included an adjunct equine facilitated therapy program, cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), eye movement desensitisation reprocessing (EMDR) therapy and art therapy. Two papers [54, 92] detailing a Canadian Service and a CAC in the US described the provision of immediate emotional support only. Two papers [33, 62] described services that did not provide any type of in-house emotional support, and seven papers [33, 61, 70, 72, 93, 104, 105]reported the provision of emotional support within the sexual assault service, but with insufficient information provided within the paper or subsequently by authors for us to categorise it as any particular type.


39 papers describing 38 different sexual assault services described arrangements for referring service users on from the sexual assault services to other mental health and substance misuse services [20, 33, 3538, 40, 4244, 49, 51, 53, 54, 56, 58, 6062, 66, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 79, 82, 85, 86, 88, 92, 93, 95, 97, 100, 101, 103105]. Most reported that the sexual assault service staff provided service users with information on available follow-up services and made appropriate referrals to services outside of the sexual assault service. Only six papers [20, 49, 60, 71, 95, 101] reported services within the UK SARCs, SANE-SARTs and CACs models that referred on with active follow-up. These services followed up people after the referral to another service had been made to determine if the person has accessed these services and to check ongoing or emerging mental health and substance misuse needs.

Overall, we found wide variation in approaches both between and within different sexual assault service models for all three domains. Unstructured assessment, unspecified counselling and referral on without assertive follow up are the most common approaches, with a minority of services providing more structured/specialist provision within each domain.

Q2: Evaluation of interventions

Six papers [84, 89, 92, 107109] reported findings from five studies, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions for mental health or substance misuse within a sexual assault service. All six papers were peer-reviewed and published between 2003 and 2017. All studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with four conducted in the US and one in Australia. Outcomes assessed were substance use and abuse, anxiety, depression and PTSD. Characteristics and key findings of each study are summarised in Table 2.

Table 2. Evaluation of interventions–Study characteristics and outcomes.

Five papers [84, 92, 107109]reported four trials of brief video interventions (VIs) to prevent post-rape psychopathology, implemented before or following a medico-legal examination. The VIs were delivered as an addition to standard sexual assault service care, which included the completion of a medico-legal examination and in most cases an additional meeting with a rape crisis counsellor/advocate. The videos were between nine to twenty minutes in length. In three studies [92, 107, 109], the video was shown before the medico-legal examination, and included information on what would happen during the examination and psycho-educational material about self-management strategies to prevent post-assault distress and/or substance use. In one study [84], the video was shown after the medico-legal examination and involved just the psycho-educational material about self-management strategies. The trial follow-up periods varied from 2 weeks to 6 months.

Two papers [107, 108]reported different findings from the same study, which evaluated a seventeen minute two-part VI offered immediately before the medico-legal examination (n = 225; n = 226). One reported a positive effect for the intervention on risk of marijuana abuse (one of six drug and alcohol use outcomes evaluated) at six weeks follow-up [107]. The other [108] found positive effects of the intervention on PTSD and depression among those with a prior history of assault, but there were no significant differences between groups on any outcomes across the whole sample. The VI evaluated by Miller 2005 [84] evaluated a nine minute VI shown post examination and found a significant positive effect for the intervention group compared to usual care on anxiety at two months follow-up(n = 179). Across the whole sample, there was no difference between groups in PTSD symptoms or self-reported distress. The other two studies testing VIs [92, 109] found no effects on any MH/SM outcomes evaluated (n = 69; n = 245). One of them was a pilot study [92], and as such likely underpowered to detect significant differences between groups. Follow-up rates at the final evaluation time point were low, varying across studies from 39% to 57%. It was not reported whether the studies were adequately powered to detect differences between groups.

One RCT [89] evaluated a six-session “Cognitive Processing Therapy” cognitive behavioural intervention at a sexual assault service in Adelaide, Australia. It was provided as an addition to routine care which included non-CBT supportive counselling, in addition to health care and collection of forensic evidence. None of the mental health outcomes was significant in this small trial (n = 47), which is likely to have been underpowered to test effectiveness.

Q3: Studies on stakeholders’ views

We found 34 papers [20, 25, 34, 37, 44, 53, 54, 60, 62, 72, 78, 82, 86, 90, 93, 94, 97, 110126]relating to 32 studies, which reported stakeholders’ views on how sexual assault services should identify and respond to mental health and substance misuse problems for people following sexual assault. Twenty five were peer-reviewed publications [25, 34, 44, 53, 54, 60, 72, 78, 82, 90, 94, 110123] and nine identified through grey literature searches [20, 37, 62, 86, 93, 97, 124126]. These were published between 1980 and 2018. Thirteen studies were set in the US, twelve in the UK, four in Canada, two in South Africa and one in seven European countries. Eleven studies included staff from sexual assault services as participants, five included service users, two included carers, one included staff from partner agencies working closely with sexual assault services, and thirteen included a mix of stakeholders. The included studies consisted of surveys, interviews and quantitative questionnaires, and are summarised in Table 3.

Eighteen studies [20, 25, 37, 54, 60, 62, 78, 86, 90, 94, 97, 111, 113, 117, 118, 121, 122, 124]reported clear preferences or recommendations by stakeholders specifically regarding assessment and management of mental health and substance misuse problems. Stakeholders suggested that sexual assault services should systematically assess for mental health and substance misuse problems, and provide in-house counselling for both adult and child service users [20, 37, 54, 62, 86, 94, 97, 111, 117]. Counselling should be provided for as long as needed and should be flexible to accommodate service users’ needs (i.e. gender of counsellor, appointment times etc.) [20, 37]. Staff in sexual assault services should receive training on how to assess and manage mental health and substance misuse problems, including training on how to support subgroups like people with learning difficulties [86, 90, 111]. Stakeholders emphasised the need for clear and prompt referral pathways as well as closer links with local mental health and substance misuse services [25, 86, 113, 118, 124]. They recommended that staff in sexual assault services should not just refer to other services, but also facilitate and encourage the take-up of follow-up services [20, 97, 121, 122]. Most commonly reported recommendations are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4. Stakeholders’ views—Recommendations for mental health and substance misuse provision in sexual assault services.

Twenty five studies [20, 34, 37, 53, 62, 72, 86, 93, 94, 97, 110, 112116, 118126] reported more general perspectives and recommendations by stakeholders regarding service organisation or delivery within sexual assault services, with relevance to the experience of people with mental health and substance misuse needs. Characteristics and recommendations of each study are provided in the data supplement (S5 File).

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of making sexual assault services more widely accessible. They suggested a 24/7 access, multi-lingual service that is flexible about timing and location of appointments [37, 53, 93, 124126]. Sexual assault services should also actively publicise their service and advertise it as clearly available to specific groups like LGBT people to overcome some of the access barriers [34, 53, 113, 125]. Regarding treatment, sexual assault services should offer a “one-stop-shop” multi-agency service that provides holistic support. Service users’ social and emotional needs should be addressed as well as medical and forensic needs [20, 86, 93, 94, 113, 116, 118, 121124]. A need was identified for specialist support within sexual assault services for LGBT clients [86, 125].

Stakeholders suggested that sexual assault services should work with referrers to minimise service users having to repeat their story on multiple occasions [93, 94]. Sexual assault services must ensure service users know they can decline a forensic examination/assessment and still receive support [34, 94, 120]. Other recommendations included that: i) staff in sexual assault services should work closely with age-related organisations to facilitate support for older survivors of sexual assault [110]; ii) support to female service users should be provided by female staff [20, 34, 97, 121, 124]; iii) s staff in sexual assault services should always display kindness and compassion and offer unconditional acceptance and belief of the service users [20, 93, 114, 115, 121, 122]; iv) Service users should be clearly informed about what are the sexual assault service procedures and should have choice and control over what happens to them at all times [20, 34, 44, 97, 113, 114].

Q3: Government and expert guidelines

We found ten documents of government and expert guidelines [20, 22, 127134] making recommendations about the mental health and substance misuse provision in SARCs in England. The documents included six UK government documents [22, 127, 131134], three European policy documents which summarised recommendations from the European Union-funded COSAI project [128130], and one research project commissioned by the UK Home Office [20] specifically to help inform policy. These range in date from 2004 to 2018 and are listed in Table 5.

Table 5. Government and expert reports–characteristics.

Recommendations from these ten policy documents regarding addressing mental health or substance use in SARCs are summarised in Table 6 below.

Table 6. Government and expert reports—recommendations for mental health and substance misuse provision in UK SARCs.

Some level of assessment of mental health problems for clients presenting at SARCs was advocated. Older UK guidance [132]recommended SARCs should undertake comprehensive assessment, including of mental health. Recent UK guidance [22, 134] says SARCs should assess risk of self-harm and vulnerability. However, the way that this should be done is not specified in any government guidance.

Regarding the provision of mental health support within SARCs, older UK guidance recommends that SARCs should provide in-house counselling (ideally not time-limited), SARC staffing should include counsellors and that SARCs should adopt a proactive approach to initiating and maintaining clients’ take-up of counselling and support services [20, 131, 132]. By 2018 however, government guidance acknowledges that most SARCs “are not designed to offer long-term support”, so referrals on to primary care counselling services or voluntary sector services are required [22]. In England recent guidance [22, 134] suggests a threshold for severity of mental health needs–above IAPT [English primary care counselling services] level 3 –requiring a referral from a SARC to multidisciplinary input from community or acute mental health services. What role SARCs should have in providing support for clients with mental health needs at or below this severity threshold is not specified. There is an absence of guidance in government policy documents about addressing clients’ needs regarding drug or alcohol use in SARCs.

Recommendations from the COSAI 2012 project [128130] were congruent with English national policy guidance, but were notably more specific in directing SARCs to focus actively on engaging people with mental health problems, and on ensuring provision of CBT therapies to treat clients with symptoms of PTSD. COSAI guidance also advocated provision of counselling support for families and close friends of the SARC client where needed, and access to specialist counselling support for LGBT SARC clients.


Summary of findings

Our synthesis of 107 included papers indicates a lack of consensus on how to identify mental health and substance use needs in sexual assault services, with identification based more often on unanchored clinical judgement than informed by standardised tools. Some sexual assault services offer in-house mental health support, and this tends to be supportive counselling rather than specific structured psychological interventions delivered by a qualified and accredited therapist. Where papers described referring to other services most did not offer an active follow-up to promote service users’ engagement with other helping agencies. In general, child advocacy centres (US, Turkey) and sexual assault services in Nordic countries were most likely to provide structured mental health support (such as using validated assessment measures, in-house structured psychological interventions, and referral with active follow-up).

However, it is important to recognise that many of the papers in the review were not specifically written to focus on mental health, and so provided very limited detail about what sexual assault services do to address mental health and substance misuse. This may reflect that mental health and substance misuse are not seen as core areas of activity for sexual assault services, compared to their defined roles in forensic evidence gathering and physical healthcare.

Our review found only five studies evaluating psychological interventions for people attending sexual assault services that provided mixed evidence of moderate quality. Four of these reported on brief psychoeducational VIs and one on a brief six session “cognitive processing therapy”. It should be noted that we did not exclude papers of low quality and our review therefore indicates there is currently no robust empirical evidence to guide sexual assault services in how to address service users’ mental health and substance misuse difficulties.

Stakeholders valued accessibility, flexibility, continuity of care, in-house psychological support, and staff trained in mental health and specialist support for LGBT people and people with learning difficulties. Service users specifically highlighted the need for longer-term support and/or follow-up including referral, integration and partnership between sexual assault services and local counselling services. Although views from different types of stakeholder groups did not conflict, there was relatively little evidence on service users’ views. Despite the existence of evidence based therapies for mental health problems following sexual assault, there is a lack of specificity in UK government and policy guidance about how SARCs should be best implemented to address service users’ mental health and substance needs.

Despite the high prevalence of substance misuse issues in people who have been sexually assaulted [141] we found that this issue was barely mentioned. In sum, despite the very high prevalence of mental health and substance misuse issues amongst those who experience sexual assault, current evidence is very limited in how far it can guide UK and international sexual assault services in how best to assess and address these needs. There is wide variation in approaches both across and within sexual assault service models.

Strengths and limitations

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to collate all types of relevant evidence regarding approaches to addressing mental health and substance misuse needs in sexual assault services internationally. Due to limited resources, the web-based search for policy guidance was limited to England and papers without a version in English were excluded. As such, we may have missed some relevant papers that could have improved our understanding of international variations in current and optimal models of mental health care in sexual assault services. However, our otherwise comprehensive search and selection strategy minimises publication and reporting bias [142].

Due to the limited information provided by most papers, we were only able to describe approaches of mental health provision in sexual assault services in very broad categories that may mask large variations in care. Findings should therefore be considered with caution. Since we included studies from 1979 onwards, our findings may not reflect current practice and stakeholder perspectives in all areas. Furthermore, some qualitative studies with mixed samples were excluded if the specific views of stakeholders from sexual assault stakeholders could not be distinguished from others. As a result, some potentially relevant evidence may have been excluded.

We used the MMAT quality assessment tool because it can assess studies across a wide range of different designs and methodologies. However, the tool is relatively crude. As a result, studies were able to obtain high quality ratings despite significant shortcomings (e.g. lack of clearly specified primary outcomes or published protocol). Due to limited resources, a single researcher conducted quality assessments.

Finally, implications for practice from our review are limited by the quality and quantity of available evidence from included studies. The few empirical studies we found had important methodological weaknesses including potentially inadequate sample sizes and high attrition rates. Relatively few qualitative studies explored service users’ views. We found almost no information about how substance misuse needs should be assessed and addressed in sexual assault services.

Implications for research

We have identified three domains of mental health care (identification, provision of in-house support, and referral onwards to external services), where different approaches can be distinguished. This can assist future researchers in describing and evaluating sexual assault services. However, further clarification and distinction between different counselling approaches in sexual assault services is required as these are poorly described in the literature to date.

There is an urgent need for high quality evidence to inform service development. Understanding which models of service delivery and organisation are most effective in supporting access to effective mental health and substance misuse treatment where required is an area of high importance. Specific key questions include: i) does structured screening of mental health and substance misuse in sexual assault services increase the uptake of mental health and substance use support, and improve outcomes? ii) Which psychological therapies should be provided by sexual assault services or by external services and what are the referral criteria? These topics could be explored through randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or naturalistic comparisons.

There is, also, a need for research that seeks to explore service users’ views of how they would like their mental health and/or substance use needs to be addressed in sexual assault services and the acceptability of current service provision. It is unclear for instance, whether service users want to return to the sexual assault service for counselling support, given that the medical forensic examination was undertaken there. Future research should also seek the views of seldom-heard groups including people from black and ethnic minorities, LGBT groups, and people with learning difficulties.

Implications for policy and practice

The variation in mental health and substance misuse service provision in sexual assault services creates an element of “postcode lottery” for service users. Clearer guidance for service planners and commissioners, informed by robust evidence about optimal service organisations and pathways, is required.

If sexual assault services are to be able to help people access support for mental health or substance use (whether provided within the service or via referral on), they first need to be able to identify people with mental health and substance misuse needs. However, our review suggests that most sexual assault services do not have consistent, robust means to do this. There is a clear need for routine, structured screening, using reliable measures, as advocated by experts in the field [25, 141]. The timing of assessments may also be important, as not all mental health problems can be reliably assessed immediately following a traumatic event. For instance, the PTSD diagnosis is given if one’s symptoms last longer than a month [15]. As a result, follow-up screening may also be needed.

Our review also suggests that most sexual assault services are not well equipped to help service users access effective treatments for mental health or substance misuse, even where difficulties have been identified. For example, the most common mental health problem following sexual assault is PTSD [7]. Recommended treatments for PTSD are structured psychological therapies (trauma-focused CBT or EMDR) to be provided promptly if symptoms persist for more than one month [15]. However, almost no papers in our review reported SARCs providing these treatments, and only a small minority of sexual assault services were reported to provide any assertive follow-up to ensure service users who need it can access treatment from other specialist services. In circumstances like these, SARCs may not act as a “one-stop shop” to coordinate care as intended. Stakeholders advocated for good communication between sexual assault services and other agencies, including mental health teams: as well as facilitating referral pathways, this may provide an opportunity for SARCs to raise awareness of the prevalence and effects of sexual assault among mental health staff.

Overall, despite all the areas of uncertainty that remains following this review, there is an identified consensus from stakeholders that SARCs should be universal and include: an accessible 24/7 service, which can meet all of people’s immediate needs, treat people with courtesy and kindness, avoiding repeat assessments and the need to retell the story of the assault as far as possible, providing information about options and establishing that nothing will be done in the SARC without the service user’s explicit consent, and providing female staff to female service users. These ways of working constitute an essential minimum for SARCs, whatever their service model, to respond with care and kindness, promote recovery and avoid additional distress for people seeking help following a sexual assault.


This paper was written as part of the MiMoS study. We would like to thank the study steering committee for their contribution and continued support.


  1. 1. García-Moreno C, Jansen HAFM, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts C. WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women Initial results on prevalence, health outcomes and women’s responses. World Health Organisation(WHO), 2005.
  2. 2. García-Moreno C. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. World Health organisation(WHO), 2013.
  3. 3. García-Moreno C, Jansen HAFM, Ellsberg M, Heise L, Watts CH. Prevalence of intimate partner violence: findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. The Lancet. 2006;368(9543):1260–9.
  4. 4. Office for National Statistics. Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2019. 2019 July.
  5. 5. Macdowall W, Gibson LJ, Tanton C, Mercer CH, Lewis R, Clifton S, et al. Lifetime prevalence, associated factors, and circumstances of non-volitional sex in women and men in Britain: findings from the third National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles (Natsal-3). The Lancet. 2013;382(9907):1845–55. pmid:24286789
  6. 6. Peterson ZD, Voller EK, Polusny MA, Murdoch M. Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011;31(1):1–24. Epub 2010/12/07. pmid:21130933.
  7. 7. Nickerson A, Steenkamp M, Aerka IM, Salters-Pedneault K, Carper TL, Barnes JB, et al. Prospective investigation of mental health following sexual assault. Depress Anxiety. 2013;30(5):444–50. Epub 2012/11/21. pmid:23165889.
  8. 8. Campbell R, Wasco SM. Understanding rape and sexual assault: 20 years of progress and future directions. J Interpers Violence. 2005;20(1):127–31. Epub 2004/12/25. pmid:15618569.
  9. 9. Rees S, Silove D, Chey T, Ivancic L, Steel Z, Creamer M, et al. Lifetime Prevalence of Gender-Based Violence in Women and the Relationship With Mental Disorders and Psychosocial Function. JAMA. 2011;306(5):513–21. pmid:21813429
  10. 10. Brooker C, Tocque K. Mental health risk factors in sexual assault: What should Sexual Assault Referral Centre staff be aware of? J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;40:28–33. Epub 2016/03/15. pmid:26974877.
  11. 11. Trevillion K, Oram S, Feder G, Howard LM. Experiences of domestic violence and mental disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51740. Epub 2013/01/10. pmid:23300562; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3530507.
  12. 12. Fredlund C, Wadsby M, Jonsson LS. Motives and Manifestations of Sex as Self-Injury. The Journal of Sex Research. 2019:1–9. pmid:31725334
  13. 13. Ullman SE. Sexual revictimization, PTSD, and problem drinking in sexual assault survivors. Addictive Behaviors. 2016;53:7–10. pmid:26414205
  14. 14. Walker HE, Freud JS, Ellis RA, Fraine SM, Wilson LC. The Prevalence of Sexual Revictimization: A Meta-Analytic Review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse. 2017;20(1):67–80. pmid:29333937
  15. 15. NICE guideline. Post-traumatic stress disorder 2018 [February 17, 2020]. Available from:
  16. 16. Regehr C, Alaggia R, Dennis J, Pitts A, Saini M. Interventions to Reduce Distress in Adult Victims of Rape and Sexual Violence: A Systematic Review. Research on Social Work Practice. 2013;23(3):257–65.
  17. 17. Vickerman KA, Margolin G. Rape treatment outcome research: empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical psychology review. 2009;29(5):431–48. Epub 04/17. pmid:19442425.
  18. 18. Roberts NP, Roberts PA, Jones N, Bisson JI. Psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress disorder and comorbid substance use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2015;38:25–38. pmid:25792193
  19. 19. Park JJ. Sexual Violence Services—International Overview. London (UK): Department of Health, 2012.
  20. 20. Lovett J, Regan L, Kelly L. Sexual Assault Referral Centres: developing good practice and maximising potentials. London: Home Office Research Study 285, 2004.
  21. 21. Herbert JL, Bromfield L. Evidence for the Efficacy of the Child Advocacy Center Model: A Systematic Review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(3):341–57. Epub 2015/05/15. pmid:25971710.
  22. 22. NHS England. Service specification No. 30 Sexual Assault Referral Centres 2018 [cited 2018 Dec]. This service specification outlines the public health functions to be exercised by NHS England in regards to the commissioning of Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARC). This Service Specification covers the period from 2016–17. Publication 13 April 2018.
  23. 23. Kelly L, Regan L. Good Practice in Medical Responses to Recently Reported Rape, Especially Forensic Examinations. A Briefing paper for the Daphne Strengthening the Linkages Project. UK: London Metropolitan Univeristy, 2003.
  24. 24. Pillai M, Paul S. Facilities for complainants of sexual assault throughout the United Kingdom. J Clin Forensic Med. 2006;13(4):164–71. Epub 2006/03/28. pmid:16564201.
  25. 25. Brooker C, Durmaz E. Mental health, sexual violence and the work of Sexual Assault Referral centres (SARCs) in England. J Forensic Leg Med. 2015;31:47–51. Epub 2015/03/05. pmid:25735784.
  26. 26. Brown R, Du Mont J, Macdonald S, Bainbridge D. A comparative analysis of victims of sexual assault with and without mental health histories: acute and follow-up care characteristics. J Forensic Nurs. 2013;9(2):76–83. Epub 2013/10/26. pmid:24158128.
  27. 27. Campbell R, Patterson D, Lichty LF. The effectiveness of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs: a review of psychological, medical, legal, and community outcomes. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2005;6(4):313–29. Epub 2005/10/12. pmid:16217119.
  28. 28. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care: University of York; 2009 [cited 2018 Jul 15]. Available from:
  29. 29. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. Epub 2009/07/23. pmid:19622551; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2714657.
  30. 30. Stefanidou T, Lloyd-Evans B, Hughes E, Brooker C, Edmonson A, Gilchrist G, et al. The identification and treatment of mental health and substance misuse problems in Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs): a systematic review. PROSPERO, 2018 CRD42018119706.
  31. 31. Hong Q, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) Version 2018
  32. 32. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M, et al. Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews: A product from the ESRC Methods Programme. UK: 2006.
  33. 33. Abrahams N, Jewkes R. Barriers to post exposure prophylaxis (PEP) completion after rape: a South African qualitative study. Cult Health Sex. 2010;12(5):471–84. Epub 2010/02/20. pmid:20169481.
  34. 34. Ahrens C, Campbell R, Wasco S, Aponte G, Grubstein L, Davidson II W. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE) programs: Alternative systems for service delivery for sexual assault victims. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 2000;15(9):921–43.
  35. 35. Beauchamp BT. The development and suggested implementation of a program evaluation for a crisis intervention sexual abuse service program for children and families [Dissertation]. Lousville, Kenucky: Spalding University; 2000.
  36. 36. Bechtel K, Ryan E, Gallagher D. Impact of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners on the Evaluation of Sexual Assault in a Pediatric Emergency Department. Pediatric Emergency Care. 2008;24(7):442–7. pmid:18580706
  37. 37. Belew S. A program evaluation for the mental health department of the Chicago Children's Advocacy Center [Dissertation]. Illinois, United States: The Chicago School of Professional Psychology; 2012.
  38. 38. Bennett S, Plint AC, MacKay M. A survey of the 16 Canadian child and youth protection programs: A threadbare patchwork quilt. Paediatr Child Health. 2007;12(3):205–9. pmid:19030360
  39. 39. Bicanic I, Snetselaar H, De Jongh A, Van de Putte E. Victims' use of professional services in a Dutch sexual assault centre. European Journal of Psychotraumatology. 2014;5. pmid:24959327.
  40. 40. Boykins ALD. Characteristics and follow-up of adult female victims of recent sexual assault [Dissertation]. Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Flealth Science Center; 2003.
  41. 41. Bramsen RH, Elklit A, Nielsen LH. A Danish Model for Treating Victims of Rape and Sexual Assault: The Multidisciplinary Public Approach. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma. 2009;18(8):886–905.
  42. 42. Campbell L, Keegan A, Cybulska B, Forster G. Prevalence of mental health problems and deliberate self-harm in complainants of sexual violence. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine. 2007;14(2):75–8. pmid:17650552
  43. 43. Campbell R, Patterson D, Adams AE, Diegel R, Coats S. A participatory evaluation project to measure SANE nursing practice and adult sexual assault patients' psychological well-being. J Forensic Nurs. 2008;4(1):19–28. Epub 2008/04/05. pmid:18387006.
  44. 44. Campbell R, Townsend SM, Long SM, Kinnison KE, Pulley EM, Adames SB, et al. Responding to sexual assault victims' medical and emotional needs: a national study of the services provided by SANE programs. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):384–98. Epub 2006/09/16. pmid:16977639.
  45. 45. Chomba E, Murray L, Kautzman M, Haworth A, Kasese-Bota M, Kankasa C, et al. Integration of services for victims of child sexual abuse at the university teaching hospital one-stop centre. J Trop Med. 2010:7. Epub 2010/08/14. pmid:20706671; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2913632.
  46. 46. Ciancone AC, Wilson C, Collette R, Gerson LW. Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs in the United States. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2000;35(4):353–7. pmid:10736121.
  47. 47. Cooper R, Deller C. Caring for Adolescent Victims of Sexual Assault. Children Australia. 1982;7(1):16–20.
  48. 48. Creighton CD, Jones AC. Psychological profiles of adult sexual assault victims. J Forensic Leg Med. 2012;19(1):35–9. Epub 2011/12/14. pmid:22152446.
  49. 49. Darnell D, Peterson R, Berliner L, Stewart T, Russo J, Whiteside L, et al. Factors Associated With Follow-Up Attendance Among Rape Victims Seen in Acute Medical Care. Psychiatry. 2015;78(1):89–101. Epub 2015/07/15. pmid:26168030; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4777603.
  50. 50. Deller CR, Fatin NA, Stewart LA. Sexual Assault Referral Centre, Perth: the first thirty months. Australian Family Physician. 1979;8(7):771–5. pmid:485965.
  51. 51. Dhairyawan R, Shardlow K, Carroll M, Sacks R. A national survey of facilities for complainants of sexual assault. Int J STD AIDS. 2017;28(5):512–9. Epub 2016/07/13. pmid:27402337.
  52. 52. Elliott DM, Briere J. Forensic Sexual Abuse Evaluations of Older Children: Disclosures and Symptomatology. Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1994;12:261–177.
  53. 53. Du Mont J, Macdonald S, White M, Turner L, White D, Kaplan S, et al. Client satisfaction with nursing-led sexual assault and domestic violence services in Ontario. J Forensic Nurs. 2014;10(3):122–34. Epub 2014/08/22. pmid:25144583.
  54. 54. Du Mont J, Parnis D. The doctor's dilemma: caregiving and medicolegal evidence collection. Medicine & Law. 2004;23(3):515–29. pmid:15532945.
  55. 55. Duddle M. Emotional sequelae of sexual assault. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 1991;84:26–8. pmid:1994009
  56. 56. Durmaz E. Rigorous attention ro detail. Nursing Standard. 2014;28(49):64–5. pmid:25095963
  57. 57. Edinburgh L, Pape-Blabolil J, Harpin SB, Saewyc E. Assessing exploitation experiences of girls and boys seen at a Child Advocacy Center. Child Abuse Negl. 2015;46:47–59. Epub 2015/05/20. pmid:25982287; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4760762.
  58. 58. Edinburgh L, Saewyc E, Levitt C. Caring for young adolescent sexual abuse victims in a hospital-based children's advocacy center. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32(12):1119–26. Epub 2008/12/02. pmid:19041133.
  59. 59. Foley M. Rape: A feminist analysis of recent public service provisions for women with particular reference to the Sexual Assault Referral Centre [Dissertation]: University of Salford; 1992.
  60. 60. Fong HF, Bennett CE, Mondestin V, Scribano PV, Mollen C, Wood JN. Caregiver perceptions about mental health services after child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2016;51:284–94. Epub 2015/11/26. pmid:26602155.
  61. 61. Gibney DR, Jones A. A crisis worker's observations on the psychosocial support for victims and families following child sexual abuse; a case study. J Forensic Leg Med. 2014;27:25–8. Epub 2014/10/08. pmid:25287795.
  62. 62. Goddard A, Harewood E, Brennan L. Review of pathway following sexual assault for children and young people in London. NHS England, The Havens, Kings College Hospital London; 2015.
  63. 63. Goodyear F. Sexual Assault Centre, Auckland, New Zealand. Medicine & Law. 1989;8(3):297–302. pmid:2516213.
  64. 64. Güney SA, Bağ Ö, Binic NC. An Overview of a Hospital-Based Child Advocacy Center's Experience from Turkey. J Child Sex Abus. 2018;27(5):476–89. Epub 2018/07/19. pmid:30020034.
  65. 65. Hagemann CT, Helland A, Spigset O, Espnes KA, Ormstad K, Schei B. Ethanol and drug findings in women consulting a Sexual Assault Center—associations with clinical characteristics and suspicions of drug-facilitated sexual assault. J Forensic Leg Med. 2013;20(6):777–84. Epub 2013/08/06. pmid:23910880.
  66. 66. Hanson G, Pascoe DJ. Intervention with sexually abused children. The Child and Adolescent Sexual Abuse Resource Center at San Francisco. Mobius. 1985;5(1):65–9. pmid:10270438.
  67. 67. Heke S, Forster G, d'Ardenne P. Risk identification and management of adults following acute sexual assault. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2009;24(1):4–15.
  68. 68. Henry L, editor Hospital Care for Victims of Sexual Assault. National Conference on Rape Law Reform; 1980; Hobart, Tasmania: Australian Institute of Criminology.
  69. 69. Herbert JL, Walsh W, Bromfield L. A national survey of characteristics of child advocacy centers in the United States: Do the flagship models match those in broader practice? Child Abuse Negl. 2018;76:583–95. Epub 2017/10/11. pmid:28992959.
  70. 70. Hester M, Lilley SJ. More than support to court: Rape victims and specialist sexual violence services. Int Rev Vict. 2018;24(3):313–28. Epub 2018/08/17. pmid:30111902; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6066863.
  71. 71. Hicks DL, Patterson D, Resko S. Lessons Learned From iCare: A Postexamination Text-Messaging-Based Program With Sexual Assault Patients. J Forensic Nurs. 2017;13(4):160–7. Epub 2017/11/28. pmid:29176518.
  72. 72. Holton G, Joyner K, Mash R. Sexual assault survivors' perspectives on clinical follow-up in the Eden District, South Africa: A qualitative study. Afr J Prim Health Care Fam Med. 2018;10(1):e1–e7. Epub 2018/06/27. pmid:29943600; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6018593.
  73. 73. Hubel GS, Campbell C, West T, Friedenberg S, Schreier A, Flood MF, et al. Child advocacy center based group treatment for child sexual abuse. J Child Sex Abus. 2014;23(3):304–25. Epub 2014/03/20. pmid:24641523.
  74. 74. Kerr E, Cottee C, Chowdhury R, Jawad R, Welch J. The Haven: a pilot referral centre in London for cases of serious sexual assault. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 2003;110(3):267–71.
  75. 75. Kille ML. A sexual assault referral service based on a hospital in a small Australian town. Medical Journal of Australia. 1986;145(5):189–94. pmid:3747893
  76. 76. Larsen ML, Hilden M. Male victims of sexual assault; 10 years' experience from a Danish Assault Center. J Forensic Leg Med. 2016;43:8–11. Epub 2016/07/09. pmid:27391940.
  77. 77. Ledray LE. Sexual assault nurse clinician: an emerging area of nursing expertise. AWHONNS Clinical Issues in Perinatal & Womens Health Nursing 1993;4(2):180–90.
  78. 78. Lippert T, Favre T, Alexander C, Cross TP. Families who begin versus decline therapy for children who are sexually abused. Child Abuse Negl. 2008;32(9):859–68. Epub 2008/10/28. pmid:18950858.
  79. 79. Loko Roka J, Van den Bergh R, Au S, De Plecker E, Zachariah R, Manzi M, et al. One size fits all? Standardised provision of care for survivors of sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict areas in the Democratic Republic of Congo. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111096. Epub 2014/10/21. pmid:25329482; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4203825.
  80. 80. Lurie S, Boaz M, Golan A. Risk factors for rape re-victimisation: a retrospective analysis. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013;33(8):865–7. Epub 2013/11/14. pmid:24219731.
  81. 81. Manning D, Majeed-Ariss R, Mattison M, White C. The high prevalence of pre-existing mental health complaints in clients attending Saint Mary's Sexual Assault Referral Centre: Implications for initial management and engagement with the Independent Sexual Violence Advisor service at the centre. J Forensic Leg Med. 2019;61:102–7. Epub 05 December 2018. pmid:30551033.
  82. 82. Mathews S, Abrahams N, Jewkes R. Exploring mental health adjustment of children post sexual assault in South Africa. J Child Sex Abus. 2013;22(6):639–57. Epub 2013/08/09. pmid:23924175.
  83. 83. McLean IA, Balding V, White C. Further aspects of male-on-male rape and sexual assault in greater Manchester. Medicine, Science & the Law. 2005;45(3):225–32. pmid:16117283.
  84. 84. Miller KE, Cranston CC, Davis JL, Newman E, Resnick H. Psychological Outcomes After a Sexual Assault Video Intervention: A Randomized Trial. J Forensic Nurs. 2015;11(3):129–36. Epub 2015/08/21. pmid:26291847.
  85. 85. Minden P. The victim care service: A program for victims of sexual assault. Archive of Psychiatric Nursing. 1989;III(1):41–6.
  86. 86. Musgrave S, Pickup L, Maskrey V, Blyth A, Notley C, Holland R. A Health Needs Assessment for complainants of Sexual Assault in Norfolk and Suffolk UK: University of East Anglia, Norfolk Constanbulary, Suffold Constanbulary, 2014.
  87. 87. Nelson DD. An examination of predictors of sexual assault mental health treatment utilization in Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Caucasian sexual assault survivors [Dissertation]. Hawaii: University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa; 2016.
  88. 88. Nesvold H, Friis S, Ormstad K. Sexual assault centers: attendance rates, and differences between early and late presenting cases. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2008;87(7):707–15. Epub 2008/07/09. pmid:18607821.
  89. 89. Nixon RDV, Best T, Wilksch SR, Angelakis S, Beatty LJ, Weber N. Cognitive Processing Therapy for the Treatment of Acute Stress Disorder Following Sexual Assault: A Randomised Effectiveness Study. Behaviour Change. 2016;33(4):232–50.
  90. 90. Olsen A, Majeed-Ariss R, Teniola S, White C. Improving service responses for people with learning disabilities who have been sexually assaulted: An audit of forensic services. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2017;45(4):238–45.
  91. 91. Ranney ML, Rennert-May E, Spitzer R, Chitai MA, Mamlin SE, Mabeya H. A novel ED-based sexual assault centre in western Kenya: description of patients and analysis of treatment patterns. Emerg Med J. 2011;28(11):927–31. Epub 2010/10/16. pmid:20947922.
  92. 92. Rheingold AA, Danielson CK, Davidson TM, Self-Brown S, Resnick H. Video Intervention for Child and Caregiver Distress Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Medical Examination: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2013;22(3):386–97.
  93. 93. Robinson AL, Hudson K, Brookman F. A Process Evaluation of Ynys Saff, the Sexual Assault Referral Centre in Cardiff. Wales: University of Cardiff, 2009.
  94. 94. Ruch LO, Chandler S. An Evaluation of a Center for Sexual Assault Victims. Women & Health. 1980;5(1):45–64.
  95. 95. Sacks RJ, Cybulska BA, Forster GE. Referral of young people attending a sexual assault referral centre to mental health services. Int J STD AIDS. 2008;19(8):557–8. Epub 2008/07/30. pmid:18663045.
  96. 96. Schei B, Sidenius K, Lundvall L, Ottesen GL. Adult victims of sexual assault: acute medical response and police reporting among women consulting a center for victims of sexual assault. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2003;82(8):750–5. pmid:12848647.
  97. 97. Schonbucher V, Kelly L, Horvath M. Archway: Evaluation of the pilot Scottish rape and sexual assault referral center. UK: London Metropolitan University, Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit; 2009.
  98. 98. Sidenius K, Pedersen B. Prevention of victimization following sexual assaults. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research. 2004;12(1):48–57.
  99. 99. Signal T, Taylor N, Botros H, Prentice K, Lazarus K. Whispering to Horses: Childhood Sexual Abuse, Depression and the Efficacy of Equine Facilitated Therapy. Sexual Abuse in Australia and New Zealand. 2013;5(1):24–32.
  100. 100. Smith DW, Witte TH, Fricker-Elhai AE. Service outcomes in physical and sexual abuse cases: a comparison of child advocacy center-based and standard services. Child Maltreat. 2006;11(4):354–60. Epub 2006/10/18. pmid:17043320.
  101. 101. Speck PM. Program evaluation of current SANE services to victim populations in three cities [Dissertation]. Tennessee, US: University of Tennessee Health Science Center; 2005.
  102. 102. Vik BF, Nottestad JA, Schei B, Rasmussen K, Hagemann CT. Psychosocial Vulnerability Among Patients Contacting a Norwegian Sexual Assault Center. J Interpers Violence. 2016;34(10):2138–57. Epub 2016/07/28. pmid:27449896.
  103. 103. Ward J, Marsh M. Sexual violence against women and girls in war and its aftermath: Realities, responses and required resources. Symposium on Sexual Violence in Conflict and Beyond2006. p. 1–34.
  104. 104. Winters L. Sexual Violence Needs Assessment For Merseyside. UK: Liverpool Public Health Observatory, 2011 Aug. Observatory Report Series No. 85.
  105. 105. Zijlstra E, Esselink G, Moors ML, LoFoWong S, Hutschemaekers G, Lagro-Janssen A. Vulnerability and revictimization: Victim characteristics in a Dutch assault center. J Forensic Leg Med. 2017;52:199–207. Epub 2017/09/30. pmid:28961551.
  106. 106. Zilkens RR, Smith DA, Mukhtar SA, Semmens JB, Phillips MA, Kelly MC. Male sexual assault: Physical injury and vulnerability in 103 presentations. J Forensic Leg Med. 2018;58:145–51. Epub 2018/07/08. pmid:29981506.
  107. 107. Acierno R, Resnick HS, Flood A, Holmes M. An acute post-rape intervention to prevent substance use and abuse. Addictive Behaviors. 2003;28(9):1701–15. pmid:14656554
  108. 108. Resnick H, Acierno R, Waldrop AE, King L, King D, Danielson C, et al. Randomised controlled evaluation of an early intervention to prevent post-rape psychopathology. Behav Res Ther. 2007;45(10):2432–47. pmid:17585872
  109. 109. Walsh K, Gilmore AK, Frazier P, Ledray L, Acierno R, Ruggiero KJ, et al. A Randomized Clinical Trial Examining the Effect of Video-Based Prevention of Alcohol and Marijuana Use Among Recent Sexual Assault Victims. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research. 2017;41(12):2163–72. pmid:126530613.
  110. 110. Bows H. Practitioner Views on the Impacts, Challenges, and Barriers in Supporting Older Survivors of Sexual Violence. Violence Against Women. 2018;24(9):1070–90. pmid:29332552.
  111. 111. Brooker C, Paul S, Sirdifield C. Mental health in Sexual Assault Referral Centres: A survey of forensic physicians. Journal of Forensic & Legal Medicine. 2018;58:117–21. pmid:29800935.
  112. 112. Burton DC, Stanley D, Ireson CL. Child advocacy outreach: using telehealth to expand child sexual abuse services in rural Kentucky. Journal of Telemedicine & Telecare. 2002;8(2):10–2. pmid:12217116.
  113. 113. Campbell R, Ahrens CE. Innovative community services for rape victims: an application of multiple case study methodology. American Journal of Community Psychology. 1998;26(4):537–71. pmid:9772731.
  114. 114. Campbell R, Greeson MR, Fehler-Cabral G. With care and compassion: adolescent sexual assault victims' experiences in Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs. Journal of Forensic Nursing. 2013;9(2):68–75. pmid:24158127.
  115. 115. Campbell R, Townsend SM, Long SM, Kinnison KE, Pulley EM, Adames SB, et al. Organizational characteristics of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner programs: results from the national survey project. Journal of Forensic Nursing. 2005;1(2):57–64, 88. pmid:17089484.
  116. 116. Clark MR, Nackerud L, Larrison CR, Neiderman R. Assessing the congruence between conceptualization and implementation of the collaborative objective in a child sexual abuse response team. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse. 1998;7(2):47–63. pmid:107183141.
  117. 117. Cole J, Logan TK. Sexual assault response teams' responses to alcohol-using victims. Journal of Forensic Nursing. 2008;4(4):174–81. pmid:19418774
  118. 118. Cowley R, Walsh E, Horrocks J. The role of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner in England: nurse experiences and perspectives. J Forensic Nurs. 2014;10(2):77–83. Epub 2014/05/23. pmid:24847871.
  119. 119. Downing NR, Mackin ML. The perception of role conflict in sexual assault nursing and its effects on care delivery. J Forensic Nurs. 2012;8(2):53–60. Epub 2012/05/25. pmid:22621663.
  120. 120. Du Mont J, White D, McGregor MJ. Investigating the medical forensic examination from the perspectives of sexually assaulted women. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(4):774–80. Epub 2008/12/20. pmid:19095341.
  121. 121. Ericksen J, Dudley C, McIntosh G, Ritch L, Shumay S, Simpson M. Clients’ experiences with a specialized sexual assault service. Journal of Emergency Nursing. 2002;28(1):86–90. pmid:11830744
  122. 122. Maier SL. Sexual assault nurse examiners' perceptions of their relationship with doctors, rape victim advocates, police, and prosecutors. J Interpers Violence. 2012;27(7):1314–40. Epub 2011/12/29. pmid:22203620.
  123. 123. Robinson A, Hudson K. Different yet complementary: Two approaches to supporting victims of sexual violence in the UK. Criminology & Criminal Justice. 2011;11(5):515–33.
  124. 124. Comparing Sexual Assault Interventions (COSAI). Mapping the current situation: Findings from the telephone interviews with stakeholders. European Union DAPHNE III Programme 2007–2013, 2012 May.
  125. 125. Harvey S, Mitchell M, Keeble J, McNaughton Nicholls C, Rahim N. Barriers Faced by Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People in Accessing Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment, and Sexual Violence Services. Welsh Government, 2014.
  126. 126. Cole JE. Factors influencing interprofessional collaboration on sexual assault response teams(SART) [Dissertation]. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky; 2007.
  127. 127. Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Sexual Assault Referal Centres "Getting Started" Guide. UK: 2004.
  128. 128. Comparing Sexual Assault Interventions (COSAI). Policy briefing: Comparing Sexual Assault Interventions across Europe. European Union DAPHNE III Programme 2007–2013, 2012 May.
  129. 129. Comparing Sexual Assault Interventions (COSAI). UK Guidance on Sexual Assault Interventions: Recommendations to improve the standards of policy and practice in the UK. European Union DAPHNE III Programme 2007–2013, 2013 Apr.
  130. 130. Comparing Sexual Assault Interventions (COSAI). Summary report: Recommendations to assess sexual assault interventions and country case studies. European Union DAPHNE III Programme 2007–2013, 2013 Feb.
  131. 131. Department of Health, Children and Mental Health Division and Home Office Violent Crime Unit. Developing Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs)–National Service Guidelines. London (UK): 2005 Oct.
  132. 132. Department of Health, Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). Revised National Service Guide: A Resource for Developing Sexual Assault Referral Centres. London (UK): 2009 Oct.
  133. 133. NHS England. Public health functions to be exercised by NHS England service specification no 30: Sexual assault services. 2013.
  134. 134. NHS England. Sexual Assault Services Provider Service Specification and Commissioning Framework for Paediatric Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) Services. 2015.
  135. 135. Steinberg AM, Brymer MJ, Decker KB, Pynoos RS. The University of California at Los Angeles post-traumatic stress disorder reaction index. Current Psychiatry Reports. 2004;6(2):96–100. pmid:15038911
  136. 136. Briere J. Trauma symptom checklist for children. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. 1996:00253–8.
  137. 137. Brewin CR, Rose S Fau—Andrews B, Andrews B Fau—Green J, Green J Fau—Tata P, Tata P Fau—McEvedy C, McEvedy C Fau—Turner S, et al. Brief screening instrument for post-traumatic stress disorder. (0007–1250 (Print)).
  138. 138. Smith P, Perrin S, Dyregrov A, Yule W. Principal components analysis of the impact of event scale with children in war. Personality and Individual Differences. 2003;34(2):315–22.
  139. 139. Goodman R, Meltzer H, Bailey V. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A pilot study on the validity of the self-report version. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1998;7(3):125–30. pmid:9826298
  140. 140. Schaefer ES. Children's reports of parental behavior: An inventory. Child Development. 1965;36(2):413–24.
  141. 141. Brooker C, Tocque K, Paul S. Assessment of the mental health status of a one year cohort attending a two Sexual Assault Referral Centres in England. J Forensic Leg Med. 2018;54:44–9. Epub 2018/01/09. pmid:29310018.
  142. 142. Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233–40. Epub 2017/09/01. pmid:28857505.