ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026
Measuring Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence and Abuse: Scoping Review of Existing Measures.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTechnology-facilitated sexual violence and abuse (TFSVA) encompasses sexual harms perpetrated through digital means. Rapid developments in this field pose challenges in precisely defining and measuring TFSVA. Consequently, existing measures may fail to capture its multifaceted nature.
objectiveThis scoping review aimed to map and appraise current knowledge on measures used to assess TFSVA, specifically to identify and summarize existing measures of TFSVA and its associated constructs, including victimization, perpetration, related attitudes, motivations, and impacts.
methodsFollowing the Joanna Briggs Institute framework, we searched 10 English and Chinese databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, ProQuest, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, SinoMed, Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature, and Ariti Library) from inception to January 13, 2026. We included peer-reviewed empirical studies focused on developing, adapting, or validating any TFSVA measures across populations and settings. Two independent reviewers screened records and extracted data. Data were analyzed using structural topic modeling (STM) and thematic analysis. Risk-of-bias assessment was not conducted, in accordance with scoping review methodology.
resultsAmong the 319 included studies, 218 distinct measures were identified. The analysis revealed a fragmented and conceptually narrow measurement landscape. Most measures focused on specific subdomains, primarily nonconsensual sexting (130/218, 59.6%), with less attention to image-based sexual abuse (30/218, 13.8%), online sexual harassment (27/218, 12.4%), online grooming (13/218, 6.0%), and cyber sexual dating abuse (8/218, 3.7%). Nearly half (108/218, 49.5%) assessed both victimization and perpetration, while 96 out of 218 (44.0%) focused solely on victimization, 12 out of 218 (5.5%) on perpetration, 1 out of 218 (0.5%) on the bystander perspective, and the remaining 1 out of 218 (0.5%) addressed all aspects. The vast majority (199/218, 91.3%) measured behaviors, whereas attitudes, motivations, and impacts were rarely assessed. STM identified 9 key topics, synthesized into 3 core dimensions: consent violation and coercive control; status degradation and demeaning harassment; and contextual and relational framing. Thematic analysis highlighted 5 themes: TFSVA acts, attitudes and beliefs, motivational factors, tactical and contextual dynamics, and survivor impact. Integrating these findings reveals a fundamental conceptual misalignment between existing measures and the full scope of TFSVA.
conclusionsThis first comprehensive synthesis of existing TFSVA measures innovatively integrates STM and thematic analysis. While the absence of a risk-of-bias assessment precludes definitive conclusions regarding measurement robustness, this review moves beyond a descriptive catalog to identify substantive gaps within TFSVA-specific measures, most notably the omission of artificial intelligence-facilitated tactics, intersectional vulnerabilities, and institutional factors. These findings provide an empirical basis for developing robust, culturally sensitive measures essential for targeted research, effective policy, and responsive social support services in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
trial registrationOpen Science Framework 10.17605/OSF.IO/Q5ETW; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Q5ETW.
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.