Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32670397›Full record

ArticleConflict and health2020

A social ecological approach to understanding service utilization barriers among male survivors of sexual violence in three refugee settings: a qualitative exploratory study.

Sarah K Chynoweth, Dale Buscher, Sarah Martin, Anthony B Zwi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conflict and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sarah K ChynowethWomen's Refugee Commission, 15 West 37th St, New York, NY 10018 USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7111-9867
Dale BuscherWomen's Refugee Commission, 15 West 37th St, New York, NY 10018 USA.
Sarah MartinGender Associations, c/o Ufer Berlin, Paul-Lincke-Ufer 41, 10999 Berlin, Germany.
Anthony B ZwiHealth, Rights and Development (HEARD@UNSW), School of Social Sciences, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052 Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-sexual violence service utilization is often poor in humanitarian settings. Little is known about the service uptake barriers facing male survivors specifically.

methodsTo gain insights into this knowledge gap, we undertook a qualitative exploratory study to better understand the barriers to service utilization among male survivors in three refugee-hosting countries. The study sites and populations included refugees who had travelled the central Mediterranean migration route through Libya living in Rome and Sicily, Italy; Rohingya refugees in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh; and refugees from eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, and South Sudan residing in urban areas of Kenya. Methods included document review, 55 semi-structured focus group discussions with 310 refugees, semi-structured key informant interviews with 148 aid workers and human rights experts, and observation of service delivery points. Data were thematically analyzed using NVivo 12.

resultsWe identified eleven key barriers and situated them within a social ecological framework to describe impediments at the policy, community (inter-organizational), organizational, interpersonal, and individual levels. Barriers entailed: 1) restrictions to accessing legal protection, 2) legislative barriers such as the criminalization of same-sex sexual relations, 3) few designated entry points, 4) poor or nonexistent referral systems, 5) lack of community awareness-raising and engagement, 6) limited staff capacity, 7) negative provider attitudes and practices, 8) social stigma, 9) limited knowledge (at the individual level), 10) self-stigma, and 11) low formal help-seeking behaviors.

conclusionThe social ecological framework allowed us to better understand the multifaceted ways that the barriers facing male survivors operate and reinforce one another, and may be useful to inform efforts promoting service uptake. Additional research is warranted in other refugee settings.

Indexed as

BangladeshHumanitarian aidItalyKenyaMale survivorsRefugeesService utilizationSexual violenceSocial ecological framework

Identifiers

PMID32670397
PMCPMC7346522

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.