Counseling for young people and families affected by child sexual exploitation and abuse: a qualitative investigation of the perspective of young people, parents, and professionals

Despite growing awareness of the negative impact of child sexual exploitation on young people’s psychological, emotional and relational lives, little is known about how counseling can support young people and their families. The aim of this study was to explore the experience of counseling for young people and parents affected by child sexual exploitation and abuse, with a view to examining what facilitates progress, from the perspective of young people, parents and professionals. In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 young people, 8 parents and 7 professionals and were analyzed using thematic analysis. Findings suggest that through counseling, young people experienced affective and relational improvements that were attributed to the process. Characteristics of the counseling relationship that facilitated progress included being able to talk openly in a caring, non-judgmental and unpressurized environment, as well as receiving advice, techniques or solutions within a holistic approach. Facets of service delivery were also highlighted, including the provision of confidentiality, flexibility and consistency, along with a multi-agency approach that promoted engagement. Perceived obstacles to progress included resistance at the outset and service location issues

Protecting children in research: Safer ways to research with children who may be experiencing violence or abuse

Children participating in research, like other children, may be being maltreated. There is also potential for exposure to abuse during research. Research training, practices and protocols to respond to disclosure and discovery of abuse to protect both researchers and children may not be sufficiently robust. Our aim was to compare and contrast research practices reported in the literature related to protecting children and to recommend safer ways to conduct research. The simultaneous increase in research with children, along with an increased willingness to listen to child victims of abuse, means that researchers must consider the protection of children in the research setting. Twenty-three papers were identified in a literature review. These studies reported a wide variation of ethical considerations, methods, methodology and came from different disciplines. From the 23 papers, two overarching themes were identified: social justice and research and safer research. To make research safer teams should consider training, safety protocols and support for child protection, which includes support to report safeguarding concerns to social care. Further work is required to ensure that training, protocols and support are effective in facilitating researchers to identify and make appropriate child abuse referrals. Ethics practices in abuse research need further debat

Practitioner review: twenty years of research with adverse childhood experience scores – advantages, disadvantages and applications to practice

Background: Adverse childhood experience (ACE) scores have become a common approach for considering childhood adversities and are highly influential in public policy and clinical practice. Their use is also controversial. Other ways of measuring adversity ‐ examining single adversities, or using theoretically or empirically driven methods ‐ might have advantages over ACE scores. Methods: In this narrative review we critique the conceptualisation and measurement of ACEs in research, clinical practice, public health and public discourse. Results: The ACE score approach has the advantages – and limitations – of simplicity: its simplicity facilitates wide‐ranging applications in public policy, public health and clinical settings but risks over‐simplistic communication of risk/causality, determinism and stigma. The other common approach – focussing on single adversities ‐ is also limited because adversities tend to co‐occur. Researchers are using rapidly accruing datasets on ACEs to facilitate new theoretical and empirical approaches but this work is at an early stage, e.g. weighting ACEs and including severity, frequency, duration and timing. More research is needed to establish what should be included as an ACE, how individual ACEs should be weighted, how ACEs cluster, and the implications of these findings for clinical work and policy. New ways of conceptualising and measuring ACEs that incorporate this new knowledge, while maintaining some of the simplicity of the current ACE questionnaire, could be helpful for clinicians, practitioners, patients and the public. Conclusions: Although we welcome the current focus on ACEs, a more critical view of their conceptualisation, measurement, and application to practice settings is urgently needed