Accessing care services after sexual violence: A systematic review exploring experiences of women in South Africa.
Moreoagae B Randa, Julie McGarry, Sarah Griffiths and 1 others
PMID 37916664WHAT IT FOUND
Women described supportive first contact at South African sexual violence care centres but fragmented follow-up, weak links to police and mental health, and gatekeeping at clinics.
Supportive first contact did not ensure accessible ongoing care.
Key findings
01Survivors must report within 72 hours to access the full range of services, including post-exposure prophylaxis.
02Supportive care at a sexual violence centre could be undone by slow, negative or unresponsive police, family and community responses.
03Post-rape services were described as inadequate and scant, and survivors reported gatekeeping at follow-up clinics.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only five studies were included, and the authors described the evidence as limited and sparse. The review reports women's experiences and service gaps, not tested effects, so it cannot show that a specific care change improves recovery. Quality appraisal found gaps in researcher-participant reflexivity, ethical reporting and detail of findings in some included studies. Children, male survivors, HIV adherence, legal and police-focused studies were excluded, so those parts of the survivor journey are not covered. One included study was a records review of a single centre, so its pandemic reduction may not represent all services. Underreporting is a major limitation: the paper states only 1 in 25 women who experience sexual assault report it to police.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this as evidence that sexual violence care centres fail patients overall or that any single nursing action improves recovery. It reports women's experiences across included studies and identifies follow-up gaps, but it does not test interventions or measure patient outcomes.