Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38645480›Full record

ArticlePsychology research and behavior management2024

Sexual Harassment at Work: Scoping Review of Reviews.

Tao Liang

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Psychology research and behavior management, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

1 author.

Tao LiangEast China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, 201620, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0009-0007-8831-3974

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This article presents a scoping review of reviews on the topic of Sexual Harassment (SH) in the workplace, a subject that has garnered significant global attention. The phenomenon of SH poses a critical challenge to equal opportunity and gender equity in the workplace. Aim: The review aims to synthesize existing research, focusing on the antecedents, consequences, and interventions related to SH. Methods: The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the research question, which was adapted from the PICO strategy. A protocol was devised following the "DS-CPC" format, which encompasses considerations related to Documents, Studies, Construct, Participants, and Contexts. The search was carried utilizing several automated databases, specifically focusing on the fields of Psychology, Behavioral Sciences, and Health. Preliminary search yielded a total of 468 articles, and the review ultimately encompassed a total of 22 articles. Results: This review critically examines the complexity of SH, including the role of bystanders, the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions, and the exploitation of power imbalances by harassers. It also explores the manifestation of SH in male-dominated workplaces and the varying levels of organizational awareness and response to such incidents. The review highlights the importance of fostering an organizational culture that not only acknowledges and protects victims but also implements effective measures to penalize perpetrators. Implications: It aims to elucidate the intricacies of SH and advocate for a workplace environment characterized by respect and accountability. Through this comprehensive analysis, the article seeks to inform and guide future research, policy development, and organizational practices concerning SH.

Indexed as

Review Literature as Topicbystander intervention#metoo movementorganizational culturereviewsexual harassmentworkplace equality

Identifiers

PMID38645480
PMCPMC11032108

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.