Abstract:Background: It is well-established that experiencing sexual abuse and violence can have a range of detrimental impacts; a wide variety of interventions exist to support survivors in the aftermath. Understanding the experiences and perspectives of survivors receiving such interventions, along with those of their family members, and the professionals who deliver them is important for informing decision making as to what to offer survivors, for developing new interventions, and enhancing their acceptability. Objectives: This review sought to: 1. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of child and adult survivors of sexual abuse and violence, and their caregivers, regarding psychosocial interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes in terms of benefits, risks/harms and barriers; 2. identify, appraise and synthesise qualitative studies exploring the experiences of professionals who deliver psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence in terms of perceived benefits, risks/harms and barriers for survivors and their families/caregivers; 3. develop a conceptual understanding of how different factors influence uptake, dropout or completion, and outcomes from psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence; 4. develop a conceptual understanding of how features and types of interventions responded to the needs of different user/survivor groups (e.g. age groups; types of abuse exposure; migrant populations) and contexts (healthcare/therapeutic settings; low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)); 5. explore how the findings of this review can enhance our understanding of the findings from the linked and related reviews assessing the effectiveness of interventions aimed at supporting survivors and preventing negative health outcomes. Search methods: In August 2021 we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and nine other databases. We also searched for unpublished reports and qualitative reports of quantitative studies in a linked systematic review, together with reference checking, citation searches and contacting authors and other researchers to identify relevant studies. Selection criteria: We included qualitative and mixed-methods studies (with an identifiable qualitative component) that were linked to a psychosocial intervention aimed at supporting survivors of sexual abuse and violence. Eligible studies focused on at least one of three participant groups: survivors of any age, gender, sexuality, ethnicity or [dis]ability who had received a psychosocial intervention; their carers, family members or partners; and professionals delivering such interventions. We placed no restrictions in respect of settings, locations, intervention delivery formats or durations. Data collection and analysis: Six review authors independently assessed the titles, abstracts and full texts identified. We extracted data using a form designed for this synthesis, then used this information and an appraisal of data richness and quality in order to stratify the studies using a maximum variation approach. We assessed the methodological limitations using the Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tool. We coded directly onto the sampled papers using NVivo and synthesised data using a thematic synthesis methodology and used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in each finding. We used a narrative synthesis and matrix model to integrate our qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) findings with those of intervention review findings. Main results: We identified 97 eligible studies and sampled 37 of them for our analysis. Most sampled studies were from high-income countries, with four from middle-income and two from low-income countries. In 27 sampled studies, the participants were survivors, in three they were intervention facilitators. Two included all three of our stakeholder groups, and five included two of our groups. The studies explored a wide range of psychosocial interventions, with only one type of intervention explored in more than one study. The review indicates that features associated with the context in which interventions were delivered had an impact on how individuals accessed and experienced interventions. This included organisational features, such as staff turnover, that could influence survivors' engagement with interventions; the setting or location in which interventions were delivered; and the characteristics associated with who delivered the interventions. Studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions typically assess their impact on mental health; however, as well as finding benefits to mental health, our QES found that study participants felt interventions also had positive impacts on their physical health, mood, understanding of trauma, interpersonal relationships and enabled them to re-engage with a wide range of areas in their lives. Participants explained that features of interventions and their contexts that best enabled them to benefit from interventions were also often things that could be a barrier to benefiting from interventions. For example, the relationship with the therapist, when open and warm was a benefit, but if such a relationship could not be achieved, it was a barrier. Survivors' levels of readiness and preparedness to both start and end interventions could have positive (if they were ready) or negative (if they were not) impacts. Study participants identified the potential risks and harms associated with completing interventions but felt that it was important to face and process trauma. Some elements of interventions were specific to the intervention type (e.g. faith-based interventions), or related to an experience of an intervention that held particular relevance to subgroups of survivors (e.g. minority groups); these issues could impact how individuals experienced delivering or receiving interventions. Authors' conclusions: We had high or moderate confidence in all but one of our review findings. Further research in low- and middle-income settings, with male survivors of sexual abuse and violence and those from minority groups could strengthen the evidence for low and moderate confidence findings. We found that few interventions had published quantitative and qualitative evaluations. Since this QES has highlighted important aspects that could enable interventions to be more suitable for survivors, using a range of methodologies would provide valuable information that could enhance intervention uptake, completion and effectiveness. This study has shown that although survivors often found interventions difficult, they also appreciated that they needed to work through trauma, which they said resulted in a wide range of benefits. Therefore, listening to survivors and providing appropriate interventions, at the right time for them, can make a significant difference to their health and well-being.

Top 10 priorities for Sexual Violence and Abuse Research: indings of the James Lind Alliance Sexual Violence Priority Setting Partnership

Overarching Priorities for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom: A Coproduced Synthesis of James Lind Alliance 'Top 10s'

Research priorities for the management of major trauma: an international priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

Research priorities relating to the delivery of cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programmes: results of a modified Delphi process

Identifying unanswered questions and setting the agenda for future systematic research in Multiple Sclerosis. A worldwide, multi-stakeholder Priority Setting project

Research priorities for future pulmonary hypertension research: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership

Identifying research priorities for psychosocial support programs in humanitarian settings

Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance

Top 10 research priorities for digital technology for adolescents and young persons with inflammatory bowel disease: Results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

UK research priority setting for childhood neurological conditions

JAMES LIND ALLIANCE FIRST TIME SOFT TISSUE KNEE INJURIES PRIORITY SETTING PARTNERSHIP: TOP TEN RESEARCH PRIORITIES

Identifying priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medication: results of a James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership

The top 10 priorities in adults living with type 1 diabetes in Ireland and the United Kingdom – A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership

Identifying the Top Ten Unanswered Questions in Community Nursing: A James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership in Community Nursing

Research priorities for childhood chronic conditions: a workshop report

Shouldering our Way into a More Meaningful Research Agenda for Atraumatic Shoulder Pain: A Priority Setting Study

Health and wellbeing of survivors of sexual violence and abuse attending sexual assault referral centres in England: the MESARCH mixed-methods evaluation

Involving patients and families in prioritising research in cardiomyopathies

Survivor, family and professional experiences of psychosocial interventions for sexual abuse and violence: a qualitative evidence synthesis

Understanding sexual violence in sex working populations-Law, legal consciousness and legal practice in four countries (2021-2023): Study Protocol v2.5

Voluntary sector specialist service provision and commissioning for victim-survivors of sexual violence: results from two national surveys in England