ArticleSexual medicine2025
The relationship between compulsive sexual behavior and pedophilic preference in an incarcerated sample of individuals convicted of sexual offenses-implications for treatment.
Article in Sexual medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is a presumed yet untested connection between sexual compulsivity and pedophilic interest among sexual offenders against children, which has driven the widespread use of anti-libidinal treatments for high-risk offenders. Aim: To test the hypothesis that compulsive sexual behavior (CSB) and pedophilic interest are related. Methods: A group of 95 prisoners in treatment for sexual offenses was administered questionnaires measuring CSB, and their self-reported offense history analyzed in order to assess their level of pedophilic interest. Outcomes: All subjects were able to provide valid details of their sexual behavior and of their previous sexual offending, and there was a wide distribution of scores on both measures. Results: Contrary to the main hypothesis, the findings revealed a negative relationship between CSB and pedophilic interest. Further analysis indicated that the main factor of CSB underlying this relationship was a lack of negative affect, together with non-significant negative trends toward the unwanted consequences and affect dysregulation components of CSB in relation to pedophilic interest. Clinical Implications: These results challenge the assumption that targeting CSB through anti-libidinal medication should be the primary intervention for offenders with elevated sexual interest in children. Instead, multifactorial approaches to sexual offending may yield more meaningful long-term effects on offender risk. Strengths and Limitations: This study is the first to explore the relationship between CSB and pedophilic interest in convicted offenders, providing valuable insights into their management and treatment. However, its findings are limited by treating pedophilic interest as a continuous variable, despite evidence suggesting it may be a taxon, potentially restricting the broader applicability of the results. Conclusions: The study concludes that compulsive sexual behavior and pedophilic interest are not inherently linked in incarcerated offenders. This underscores the need for nuanced, individualized treatment approaches that align with multifactorial models of sexual offending. Clinically and at the policy level, this calls for a shift away from a sole focus on anti-libidinal treatments toward interventions tailored to address the complex and varied needs of this population.
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.