mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES003/DOJ-OGR-00005913.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "397-2",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 45\nAlaggia et al.\n261\nCSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than 30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000) than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jillian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In other words, while 1 out of 8 people retrospectively report having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate only 1 per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) further found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding CSA disclosure.\nIt is our view that incidence statistics are likely an underestimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures with research showing a large number of survivors only disclosing in adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015; Smith et al., 2000), these issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious negative effects and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiving necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facilitate earlier disclosures.\nPrevious literature reviews examining factors influencing CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include Paine and Hansen's (2002) original review covering the literature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman's (2005) subsequent review, which may not have captured publications affected by \"lag to print\" delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews are now dated and therefore do not take into account the plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past 15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinct contributions on the dialogical relational processes of disclosure (Reiterma & Grietens, 2015), CSA disclosures in adulthood (Tener & Murphy, 2015), and delayed disclosures in childhood (McElvaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and into adulthood—over the life course.\nMethod\nKiteley and Stogdon's (2014) systematic review framework was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to highlight the most convincing findings that should be considered for future research, practice, and program planning. This review centered on the question: What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to future research and practice? By way of clarification, the term systematic review refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching literature on studies for knowledge construction, in this case the CSA disclosure literature, rather than intervention studies. The years spanned for searching the literature were 2000–2016, building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap. Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching international electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Educational Resources Information Center, Canadian Research Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peer-reviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished literature such as internal agency documents, government reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process. Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling.\nA search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publications, 1 French study, and 1 Portuguese review. The search was further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic investigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves, exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied, the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were subjected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors; (2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used, sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was generated and was continuously revised as the selection of studies was refined (see Table 1).\nKey Findings\nFirst-level analysis of the studies identified key study characteristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure, study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to definitions, the term \"telling\" is most frequently used in place of the term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term more readily understood by study participants. Several\nDOJ-OGR-00005913",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397-2 Filed 10/29/21 Page 3 of 45",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Alaggia et al.",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "261",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "CSA to authorities and the high rates reported in prevalence studies. For example, a meta-analysis conducted by Stoltenborgh, van IJzendoorn, Euser, and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2011) combining estimations of CSA in 217 studies published between 1980 and 2008 revealed rates of CSA to be more than 30 times greater in studies relying on self-reports (127 in 1,000) than in official report inquiries, such as those based on data from child protection services and the police (4 in 1,000) (Jillian, Cotter, & Perreault, 2014; Statistics Canada 2013). In other words, while 1 out of 8 people retrospectively report having experienced CSA, official incidence estimates indicate only 1 per 250 children. In a survey of Swiss child services, Maier, Mohler-Kuo, Landholt, Schnyder, and Jud (2013) further found 2.68 cases per 1,000 of CSA disclosures, while in a recent comprehensive review McElvaney (2015) details the high prevalence of delayed, partial, and nondisclosures in childhood indicating a persistent trend toward withholding CSA disclosure.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It is our view that incidence statistics are likely an underestimation of CSA disclosures, and this drives the rationale for the current review. Given the persistence of delayed disclosures with research showing a large number of survivors only disclosing in adulthood (Collin-Vézina et al., 2015; Easton, 2013; Hunter, 2011; McElvaney, 2015; Smith et al., 2000), these issues should be a concern for practitioners, policy makers, and the general public (McElvaney, 2015). The longer disclosures are delayed, the longer individuals potentially live with serious negative effects and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, trauma disorders, and addictions, without receiving necessary treatment. This also increases the likelihood of more victims falling prey to undetected offenders. Learning more about CSA disclosure factors and processes to help advance our knowledge base may help professionals to facilitate earlier disclosures.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Previous literature reviews examining factors influencing CSA disclosure have served the field well but are no longer current. Important contributions on CSA disclosures include Paine and Hansen's (2002) original review covering the literature largely from the premillennium era, followed by London, Bruck, Ceci, and Shuman's (2005) subsequent review, which may not have captured publications affected by \"lag to print\" delays so common in peer-reviewed journals. These reviews are now dated and therefore do not take into account the plethora of research that has been accumulated over the past 15 years. Other recent reviews exist but with distinct contributions on the dialogical relational processes of disclosure (Reiterma & Grietens, 2015), CSA disclosures in adulthood (Tener & Murphy, 2015), and delayed disclosures in childhood (McElvaney, 2015). This literature review differs by focusing on CSA disclosures in children, youth, and adults from childhood and into adulthood—over the life course.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Method",
      "position": "subheading"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Kiteley and Stogdon's (2014) systematic review framework was utilized to establish what has been investigated in CSA disclosure research, through various mixed methods, to highlight the most convincing findings that should be considered for future research, practice, and program planning. This review centered on the question: What is the state of CSA disclosure research and what can be learned to apply to future research and practice? By way of clarification, the term systematic review refers to a methodologically sound strategy for searching literature on studies for knowledge construction, in this case the CSA disclosure literature, rather than intervention studies. The years spanned for searching the literature were 2000–2016, building on previous reviews without a great deal of overlap. Retrieval of relevant research was done by searching international electronic databases: PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Educational Resources Information Center, Canadian Research Index, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress, Sociological Abstracts, Social Service Abstracts, and Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts. This review searched peer-reviewed studies. A search of the gray literature (unpublished literature such as internal agency documents, government reports, etc.) was beyond the scope of this review because unpublished studies are not subjected to a peer-review process. Keyword search terms used were child sexual abuse, childhood sexual abuse, disclosure, and telling.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A search of the 9 databases produced 322 peer-reviewed articles. Selected search terms yielded 200 English publications, 1 French study, and 1 Portuguese review. The search was further refined by excluding studies focusing on forensic investigations, as these studies constitute a specialized legal focus on interview approaches and techniques. As well, papers that focused exclusively on rates and responses to CSA disclosure were excluded, as these are substantial areas unto themselves, exceeding the aims of the review question. Review articles were also excluded. Once the exclusion criteria were applied, the search results yielded 33 articles. These studies were subjected to a thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke (2006). This entailed (1) multiple readings by the three authors; (2) identifying patterns across studies by coding and charting specific features; (3) examining disclosure definitions used, sample characteristics, and measures utilized; and (4) major findings were extrapolated. Reading of the articles was initially conducted by the authors to identify general trends in a first level of analyses and then subsequently to identify themes through a deeper second-level analyses. A table of studies was generated and was continuously revised as the selection of studies was refined (see Table 1).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Key Findings",
      "position": "subheading"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First-level analysis of the studies identified key study characteristics. Trends emerged around definitions of CSA disclosure, study designs, and sampling issues. First, in regard to definitions, the term \"telling\" is most frequently used in place of the term disclosure. In the absence of standardized questionnaires or disclosure instruments, telling emerges as a practical term more readily understood by study participants. Several",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005913",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Stoltenborgh",
      "van IJzendoorn",
      "Euser",
      "Bakermans-Kranenburg",
      "Jillian",
      "Cotter",
      "Perreault",
      "Maier",
      "Mohler-Kuo",
      "Landholt",
      "Schnyder",
      "Jud",
      "McElvaney",
      "Collin-Vézina",
      "Easton",
      "Hunter",
      "Smith",
      "Paine",
      "Hansen",
      "London",
      "Bruck",
      "Ceci",
      "Shuman",
      "Reiterma",
      "Grietens",
      "Tener",
      "Murphy",
      "Kiteley",
      "Stogdon",
      "Braun",
      "Clarke"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Statistics Canada",
      "PsycINFO",
      "PsycARTICLES",
      "Educational Resources Information Center",
      "Canadian Research Index",
      "International Bibliography of the Social Sciences",
      "Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress",
      "Sociological Abstracts",
      "Social Service Abstracts",
      "Applied Social Science Index and Abstracts"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Switzerland"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1980",
      "2008",
      "2011",
      "2013",
      "2014",
      "2015",
      "2002",
      "2005",
      "2000",
      "2016",
      "10/29/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "397-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005913"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document or academic paper discussing child sexual abuse (CSA) disclosure. The text is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}