SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Meaning-making following sexual abuse: a scoping review and meta-synthesis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Exposure to adult sexual assault and child sexual abuse leaves survivors with questions about meaning and the process of meaning-making following sexual abuse may influence survivors' recovery. Insight in meaning-making following sexual abuse and survivors' perceptions of the role of meaning-making in recovery informs professionals involved in their care. Objective: This scoping review and meta-synthesis of qualitative, mixed methods, and review studies aims to explore survivors' experiences of meaning-making following sexual abuse. Method: We searched six databases: PsycInfo, Ovid Medline ALL, Ovid Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, PTSDpubs, and Web of Science, and screened 2,158 deduplicated references for inclusion. We followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines for reporting of the systematic search. We integrated findings of the included studies using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Seventy-four studies were included in the review. Methodological approaches included selecting participants based on experiencing resilience and recovery following sexual abuse or participants receiving professional support, and focusing on the role of time, specific survivor actions, specific abuse or post-abuse contexts or cultural contexts. Twelve themes were generated, reflecting experiences of meaning-making following sexual abuse: reframing the abuse, moving from shame towards self-acceptance, understanding one's own beliefs, reorienting towards religion and spirituality, helping others, connecting with a peer group, building supportive relationships, a secret (not) to be disclosed, recognizing positive change, engaging in activism, honoring strengths and hope, and living with triggers. We grouped the themes into three overarching themes: a changed self, reshaping relationships with others, and mapping out a future self and world. Discussion: Experiences of meaning-making involve turning points and transitions, e.g., from receiving to providing support, from retelling to reframing, and deliberate acts of self-care. Our findings suggest that the process of meaning-making following sexual abuse operates at existential, cognitive, emotional, motivational, social, and bodily levels. Attending to these multilayered meanings can facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and expand professionals' insight into their roles and responsibilities in trauma-informed care. Efforts to prevent sexual abuse and mitigate its long-term effects should include strengthening peer and community support, fostering cultural connectedness, and promoting social change.
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.