Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42555469›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2026

A community sensitive mixed-methods protocol for parental reporting of child sexual abuse.

Ismiyati, Suminah, Ika Sumiyarsi Sukamto, Argyo Demartoto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in MethodsX, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

IsmiyatiPoliteknik Kesehatan Kementerian Kesehatan Banten, Banten, Indonesia.
SuminahFaculty of Postgraduate School, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Central Java, Indonesia.
Ika Sumiyarsi SukamtoFaculty of Medicine, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Central Java, Indonesia.
Argyo DemartotoFaculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Sebelas Maret, Central Java, Indonesia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article presents a community sensitive mixed methods protocol for studying parental reporting of child sexual abuse. The protocol combines a brief school based cross sectional survey among parents with service linked in-depth interviews involving parents of affected children. It was developed to address a common limitation in child sexual abuse reporting research, namely the separation of community level reporting attitudes from case based family experiences. The protocol uses a low burden four item survey and semi-structured interview guide. The two strands are integrated at the interpretation stage through a narrative joint display that compares normative endorsement of reporting with lived reporting barriers. The protocol specifies the quantitative multistage random sampling procedure, participant flow, qualitative case access involving parents of affected children, thematic coding procedures, and concrete examples of mixed-methods integration to strengthen reproducibility. The protocol is designed to be feasible, ethically sensitive, and reproducible in community and low-resource settings. It may be useful for researchers seeking to study discrepancies between support for formal reporting in principle and the practical difficulties families face when abuse is disclosed.•Combines community based parent surveying with service linked parental interviewing in one ethically structured design.•Uses a brief reporting attitudes instrument and a domain based interview guide to generate complementary forms of evidence.•Provides a replicable workflow for recruitment, safeguarding, qualitative analysis, and mixed methods integration.

Indexed as

Child sexual abuseDisclosure delayMixed-methods protocolParental reporting

Identifiers

PMID42555469
PMCPMC13356697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.