Observational studyEpidemiology and psychiatric sciences2021
#patientstoo - Professional sexual misconduct by healthcare professionals towards patients: a representative study.
Observational study in Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A review of sexual misconduct in dentistry.British dental journal · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- 10 Limits to Forgiveness in Health Care.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2025Article
- I am the psychiatric patient and the psychiatric patient is me: Retelling a lived experience narrative of professional sexual misconduct.Journal of psychiatric and mental health nursing · 2025Article
- Healers that hurt: a scoping review of media reports of cases of rape in healthcare settings.BMC psychology · 2024Article
- Combining rules and dialogue: exploring stakeholder perspectives on preventing sexual boundary violations in mental health and disability care organizations.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Dealing with sexual boundary violation in mental healthcare institutions by government policies: the case of Flanders, Belgium.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsSexual border violations are a severe problem in the healthcare system. Studies using non-probability samples indicate a high prevalence of professional sexual misconduct (PSM) towards patients. However, valid prevalence rates are lacking.
methodsWe did a cross-sectional, observational study in Germany from February to April 2020. By different sampling steps, a probability sample of the German population above the age of 14 was generated. The final sample consisted 2503 persons (50.2% female, mean age: 49.5 years). Participants were asked about sexual contacts with and sexual harassment by healthcare professionals. Using descriptive statistics, prevalence rates of PSM were estimated.
resultsPSM was reported by 56 (4.5%) female and 17 (1.4%) male participants. In detail, 28 (2.2%) female and 10 (0.8%) male participants reported sexual contacts with healthcare professionals. One third of these sexual contacts took place before the age of 18 and one third against the will of the patients. 40 (3.2%) female and 8 (0.6%) male participants reported unnecessary physical examinations, 31 (2.5%) female and 7 (0.6%) male participants reported sexual harassment. The majority of perpetrators were male.
conclusionsOur data provide an important first insight into the prevalence of PSM by healthcare professionals towards patients in a representative sample. Results suggest a high prevalence of PSM in the general population of Germany. Preventive measures to increase awareness of PSM and concepts for protection of patients are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.