ArticlePloS one2026
Sexual harassment protocols at the European universities: An overview of key components and recommendations for improvement.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protocols against sexual harassment (SH) have been widely adopted in European universities as part of a broader structural gender approach in higher education and research institutions. However, existing literature indicates that these protocols have often been insufficient. In particular, there is a lack of effective restorative measures that address the needs of both survivors and perpetrators of SH. The aim of this study was to analyse and compare SH protocols across seven European universities and to provide evidence-based recommendations for improving the management of SH in higher education. The study adopts an intersectional perspective, recognising how overlapping social factors (such as gender, ethnicity, disability, or migration status) shape experiences of SH. This study employed a qualitative content analysis, using content analysis of 10 SH protocols from seven European universities. The results show that some universities provide comprehensive protocols that include procedural, preventive, and reparative measures. However, others have protocols with significant shortcomings. These include limited implementation, diffuse procedures, and a lack of practical application of an intersectional approach. Main recommendations include offering multiple and accesible reporting and support resources, appointing a single case coordinator to accompany survivors throughout the entire process, and enhancing cooperation between departments and specialised external services addressing SH and sexual violence (SV).
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.