4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Sexual Harassment at Work: Scoping Review of Reviews

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          This article presents a scoping review of reviews on the topic of Sexual Harassment (SH) in the workplace, a subject that has garnered significant global attention. The phenomenon of SH poses a critical challenge to equal opportunity and gender equity in the workplace.

          Aim

          The review aims to synthesize existing research, focusing on the antecedents, consequences, and interventions related to SH.

          Methods

          The inclusion and exclusion criteria were established based on the research question, which was adapted from the PICO strategy. A protocol was devised following the “DS-CPC” format, which encompasses considerations related to Documents, Studies, Construct, Participants, and Contexts. The search was carried utilizing several automated databases, specifically focusing on the fields of Psychology, Behavioral Sciences, and Health. Preliminary search yielded a total of 468 articles, and the review ultimately encompassed a total of 22 articles.

          Results

          This review critically examines the complexity of SH, including the role of bystanders, the perpetuation of myths and misconceptions, and the exploitation of power imbalances by harassers. It also explores the manifestation of SH in male-dominated workplaces and the varying levels of organizational awareness and response to such incidents. The review highlights the importance of fostering an organizational culture that not only acknowledges and protects victims but also implements effective measures to penalize perpetrators.

          Implications

          It aims to elucidate the intricacies of SH and advocate for a workplace environment characterized by respect and accountability. Through this comprehensive analysis, the article seeks to inform and guide future research, policy development, and organizational practices concerning SH.

          Related collections

          Most cited references106

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.

              The expansion of evidence-based practice across sectors has lead to an increasing variety of review types. However, the diversity of terminology used means that the full potential of these review types may be lost amongst a confusion of indistinct and misapplied terms. The objective of this study is to provide descriptive insight into the most common types of reviews, with illustrative examples from health and health information domains. Following scoping searches, an examination was made of the vocabulary associated with the literature of review and synthesis (literary warrant). A simple analytical framework -- Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis (SALSA) -- was used to examine the main review types. Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were analysed against the SALSA framework, illustrating the inputs and processes of each review type. A description of the key characteristics is given, together with perceived strengths and weaknesses. A limited number of review types are currently utilized within the health information domain. Few review types possess prescribed and explicit methodologies and many fall short of being mutually exclusive. Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health information and the wider health care domain.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Psychol Res Behav Manag
                Psychol Res Behav Manag
                prbm
                Psychology Research and Behavior Management
                Dove
                1179-1578
                16 April 2024
                2024
                : 17
                : 1635-1660
                Affiliations
                [1 ]East China University of Political Science and Law , Shanghai, 201620, People’s Republic of China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Tao Liang, Email 3188@ecupl.edu.cn
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8831-3974
                Article
                455753
                10.2147/PRBM.S455753
                11032108
                38645480
                b00376c0-990d-4cb8-80ab-51bb266a16c0
                © 2024 Liang.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 05 January 2024
                : 16 March 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, References: 109, Pages: 26
                Funding
                Funded by: funding;
                There is no funding to report.
                Categories
                Review

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                sexual harassment,review,bystander intervention,organizational culture,workplace equality,#metoo movement

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content1,006

                Cited by1

                Most referenced authors913