Sexual victimization is typically presented as a gender-based problem involving a female victim and a male offender. Science, policy, and society focus on female victims at the expense of male victims. Male sexual victimization is thus understudied compared with female sexual victimization. By performing a critical interpretive synthesis of research papers, policy documents, and gray literature ( N = 67) published in four electronic databases from January 2000 through September 2017, this article establishes the prevalence of male sexual victims and the causes that underlie the underrepresentation of this group in existing research and current policy. The prevalence rates of male sexual victims vary considerably, with up to 65% of men reporting sexual victimization. The underrepresentation of male victims was found to be rooted in prevailing gender roles and accepted sexual scripts in society, together with rape myths and stereotypical rape scripts. The former prescribes men as the dominant and sexually active gender. The latter denies male sexual victimization and frames women as “ideal victims.” Combined, these prevailing societal perceptions of men, male sexuality, and sexual victimization prevent men from self-identifying as victims and inhibit them from seeking help to cope with the adverse consequences of sexual victimization. Addressing the gender differences in sexual victimization requires societal and political changes that challenge prevailing stereotypical perceptions of sexual victims. Such changes could result in improved support services for male sexual victims.

No abstract

Prisoners constitute a high-risk group for suicide. As an early stage in the pathway leading to suicide, suicidal ideation represents an important target for prevention, yet research on this topic is scarce in general prison populations. Using a cross-sectional survey design, correlates of suicidal ideation while incarcerated were examined in a sample of 1203 male prisoners, randomly selected from 15 Flemish prisons. Overall, a lifetime history of suicidal ideation and attempts was endorsed by 43.1% and 20.3% of respondents, respectively. Approximately a quarter of all prisoners (23.7%) reported past-year suicidal ideation during their current incarceration, which was significantly associated with both imported vulnerabilities (psychiatric diagnoses and a history of attempted suicide) and variables unique to the prison experience (lack of working activity, exposure to suicidal behaviour by peers, and low levels of perceived autonomy, safety and social support) in the multivariate regression analysis. A first-ever period of imprisonment and a shorter length of incarceration (≤12months) were also associated with increased odds of recent suicidal ideation. Collectively, the current findings underscore the importance of both vulnerability factors and prison-specific stressors for suicidal ideation in prisoners, and hence the need for a multi-faceted approach to suicide prevention in custodial settings. In addition to the provision of appropriate mental health care, environmental interventions that target modifiable aspects of the prison regime could provide a substantial buffer for the onset and persistence of suicidal ideation in this at-risk population.

The importance of the critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to review quantitative and qualitative research, and to critically develop new theory, is increasingly recognized and evidenced by the increase in published CIS reviews. However, the flexibility embedded in the method hampers its implementation and exacerbates concerns about trustworthiness. This paper seeks to determine the extent of transparent reporting and soundness of execution in published CIS reviews by developing assessment criteria based on CIS key features. We analyzed 77 CIS reviews published between 2006 and 2018 for their reporting practices. Findings indicate that reporting practices of CIS key features are suboptimal. We recommend that authors better document their CIS to increase the transparency of their study and suggest authors to rely on described guidelines to select and conduct their CIS. To this end, our reported evaluation criteria could assist authors, reviewers, and journal editors in their evaluation of the quality of CIS studies.