Identifying and working with appropriate treatment targets with people who are sexually attracted to children

Figures & data

Table 1. Differences in MAP treatment target prioritization.

Comparison
Target 1		Target 2	Mdiff	SE	t	ptukey	dz
Mental health	–	Control or change attractions	3.97	0.20	19.87	<.001	1.62
Mental health	–	Living with stigma	0.75	0.16	4.74	<.001	0.39
Mental health	–	Sexual frustration	2.06	0.21	9.92	<.001	0.81
Control or change attractions	–	Living with stigma	−3.22	0.21	−15.50	<.001	−1.27
Control or change attractions	–	Sexual frustration	−1.90	0.20	−9.62	<.001	−0.79
Living with stigma	–	Sexual frustration	1.32	0.21	6.26	<.001	0.51

Figure 1. Treatment prioritization scores, by group. Data represent estimated marginal means surrounded by 95% confidence intervals.

Table 2. Estimated marginal means for treatment prioritization, by group.

				95% CI (M)
Treatment target	Group	M	SE	Lower	Upper
Mental health	Primary care	8.82	0.21	8.41	9.23
	Mental health	8.42	0.20	8.02	8.81
	Specialists	8.46	0.17	8.13	8.79
	MAPs	7.78	0.16	7.47	8.10
Control or change	Primary care	7.80	0.20	7.39	8.20
	Mental health	7.80	0.20	7.41	8.19
	Specialists	7.39	0.16	7.06	7.71
	MAPs	3.82	0.16	3.51	4.13
Living with stigma	Primary care	6.48	0.21	6.06	6.90
	Mental health	6.82	0.21	6.42	7.23
	Specialists	8.09	0.17	7.76	8.43
	MAPs	7.04	0.16	6.71	7.36
Sexual frustration	Primary care	7.56	0.27	7.02	8.09
	Mental health	8.06	0.26	7.55	8.58
	Specialists	8.66	0.22	8.24	9.09
	MAPs	5.72	0.21	5.31	6.13

Table 3. Differences in treatment target prioritization between MAPs and the professional groups (for initial reporting of the professional data, see Lievesley et al., 2022, 2022a, 2022b).

	Comparison
Target	Group 1		Group 2	Mdiff	SE	df	t	ptukey
Mental health	Primary care	–	MAPs	1.04	0.26	466	3.97	.008
	Mental health	–	MAPs	0.63	0.26	466	2.47	.496
	Specialists	–	MAPs	0.68	0.23	466	2.93	.204
Control or change attractions	Primary care	–	MAPs	3.98	0.26	466	15.44	< .001
	Mental health	–	MAPs	3.98	0.25	466	15.83	< .001
	Specialists	–	MAPs	3.57	0.23	466	15.74	< .001
Living with stigma	Primary care	–	MAPs	−0.56	0.27	466	−2.06	.789
	Mental health	–	MAPs	−0.21	0.26	466	−0.81	1.000
	Specialists	–	MAPs	1.06	0.24	466	4.46	.001
Sexual frustration	Primary care	–	MAPs	1.84	0.34	466	5.37	< .001
	Mental health	–	MAPs	2.34	0.33	466	7.01	< .001
	Primary care	–	MAPs	2.94	0.30	466	9.78	< .001

Note. Mean differences that are positive indicate that professional groups prioritize that treatment target to a greater degree than MAPs.

Table 4. Between-variable correlations between treatment target prioritization and relevant demographic, sexuality, and psychological factors.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1. Age	–
2. Exclusivity	.02	–
3. Parent	.48***	−.12	–
4. Relationship	.00	−.17*	.22**	–
5. Sexual satisfaction	.02	−.07	−.08	.11	–
6. Mental wellbeing	.16	.08	−.02	.07	.17*	–
7. COPE—Social supports	.04	.10	−.11	.14	.18*	.33***	–
8. COPE—Problem-focused	.19*	.05	.06	.13	−.03	.56***	.34***	–
9. COPE—Avoidance	.13	−.17*	.05	.20*	−.12	−.34***	.02	−.22**	–
10. COPE—Positive thinking	.02	.08	.00	−.06	.03	.21**	.13	.22**	−.20*	–
11. Hope	.21*	.07	.02	.10	.18*	.81***	.31***	.65***	−.31***	.21**	–
12. Self-compassion	.26**	.05	.13	.04	.14	.64***	.22**	.57***	−.40***	.30***	.71***	–
13. Perceived stigma	−.04	.06	−.01	−.03	−.09	−.03	.02	−.09	−.01	−.06	−.09	−.17*	–
14. Mental health priorities	−.03	.07	−.01	−.07	−.25**	−.46***	.00	−.12	.31***	−.05	−.41***	−.49***	.11	–
15. Control or change priorities	−.02	−.16*	−.14	.18*	−.20*	−.08	.01	.07	.30***	−.10	−.02	−.20*	−.12	.20*	–
16. Living with stigma priorities	−.04	−.10	.03	.09	−.03	−.28***	.13	−.05	.25**	−.09	−.25**	−.36***	.03	.60***	.19*	–
17. Sexual frustration priorities	.03	−.04	.05	.02	−.33***	.03	.11	.15	.21**	.10	.07	−.15	−.02	.35***	.48***	.35***	–

Note. The variables ‘Exclusivity’, ‘Parent’ and ‘Relationship’ are dichotomous (scored 0 = no, 1 = yes). Predictors starting with ‘COPE’ refer to the facets of the COPE scale. The variables ending in ‘priorities’ reflect the different clusters of potential treatment targets.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Table 5. Predictors of mental health related treatment prioritization among MAPs.

						95% CI (β)
Predictor	b	SE	t	p	β	Lower	Upper
Intercept	9.06	2.04	4.43	< .001
Age	0.01	0.02	0.37	.711	0.03	−0.15	0.22
Exclusivity	0.57	0.55	1.04	.303	0.21	−0.19	0.61
Parent	0.50	0.75	0.67	.507	0.18	−0.36	0.73
Relationship	−0.44	0.49	−0.89	.375	−0.16	−0.52	0.20
Sexual satisfaction	−0.23	0.17	−1.31	.192	−0.11	−0.28	0.06
Mental wellbeing	−1.10	0.38	−2.90	.005	−0.32	−0.54	−0.10
COPE—Social supports	0.51	0.30	1.69	.095	0.14	−0.03	0.31
COPE—Problem-focused	1.15	0.37	3.07	.003	0.31	0.11	0.51
COPE—Avoidance	0.45	0.45	0.99	.322	0.09	−0.09	0.27
COPE—Positive thinking	0.22	0.35	0.62	.536	0.05	−0.11	0.20
Self-compassion	−1.54	0.43	−3.59	< .001	−0.43	−0.67	−0.19
Perceived stigma	0.14	0.15	0.96	.338	0.08	−0.08	0.23

Note. b refers to the unstandardized estimate, whereas β refers to the standardized estimate. The variables ‘Exclusivity', ‘Parent’ and ‘Relationship’ were all entered as dichotomous predictors (scored 0 = no, 1 = yes). Predictors starting with ‘COPE’ refer to the facets of the COPE scale. Significant predictors are presented in bold typeface.

Table 6. Predictors of MAPs’ prioritization of treatment targeting controlling or changing their sexual attractions to children.

						95% CI (β)
Predictor	b	SE	t	p	β	Lower	Upper
Intercept	5.06	2.04	2.48	.015
Age	0.02	0.02	0.97	.335	0.10	−0.11	0.32
Exclusivity	−1.22	0.55	−2.22	.029	−0.52	−0.98	−0.06
Parent	−1.41	0.75	−1.88	.063	−0.60	−1.23	0.03
Relationship	0.77	0.49	1.56	.121	0.33	−0.09	0.74
Sexual satisfaction	−0.36	0.17	−2.09	.039	−0.20	−0.40	−0.01
Mental wellbeing	0.37	0.38	0.97	.335	0.12	−0.13	0.38
COPE—Social supports	0.10	0.30	0.33	.746	0.03	−0.16	0.23
COPE—Problem-focused	0.48	0.37	1.27	.206	0.15	−0.08	0.38
COPE—Avoidance	0.24	0.45	0.52	.602	0.06	−0.16	0.27
COPE—Positive thinking	0.13	0.35	0.37	.716	0.03	−0.15	0.21
Self-compassion	−1.10	0.43	−2.57	.012	−0.36	−0.63	−0.08
Perceived stigma	−0.25	0.15	−1.68	.095	−0.16	−0.34	0.03

Note. b refers to the unstandardized estimate, whereas β refers to the standardized estimate. The variables ‘Exclusivity', ‘Parent’ and ‘Relationship’ were all entered as dichotomous predictors (scored 0 = no, 1 = yes). Predictors starting with ‘COPE’ refer to the facets of the COPE scale. Significant predictors are presented in bold typeface.

Table 7. Predictors of prioritizing living with stigma as a treatment goal for MAPs.

						95% CI (β)
Predictor	b	SE	t	p	β	Lower	Upper
Intercept	7.36	2.06	3.57	< .001
Age	−0.01	0.02	−0.38	.706	−0.04	−0.24	0.17
Exclusivity	−0.36	0.55	−0.65	.518	−0.15	−0.59	0.30
Parent	1.07	0.76	1.41	.162	0.43	−0.18	1.04
Relationship	0.14	0.50	0.29	.774	0.06	−0.34	0.46
Sexual satisfaction	0.18	0.17	1.04	.302	0.10	−0.09	0.28
Mental wellbeing	−0.78	0.38	−2.06	.042	−0.26	−0.50	−0.01
COPE—Social supports	0.63	0.31	2.06	.042	0.19	0.01	0.38
COPE—Problem-focused	0.84	0.38	2.22	.029	0.25	0.03	0.47
COPE—Avoidance	0.24	0.46	0.52	.601	0.05	−0.15	0.26
COPE—Positive thinking	0.10	0.35	0.27	.784	0.02	−0.15	0.20
Self-compassion	−1.12	0.43	−2.59	.011	−0.35	−0.61	−0.08
Perceived stigma	0.05	0.15	0.34	.732	0.03	−0.15	0.21

Note. b refers to the unstandardized estimate, whereas β refers to the standardized estimate. The variables ‘Exclusivity', ‘Parent’ and ‘Relationship’ were all entered as dichotomous predictors (scored 0 = no, 1 = yes). Predictors starting with ‘COPE’ refer to the facets of the COPE scale. Significant predictors are presented in bold typeface.

Table 8. Predictors of MAPs’ prioritization of sexual frustration concerns as a treatment goal.

						95% CI (β)
Predictor	b	SE	t	p	β	Lower	Upper
Intercept	4.31	2.78	1.55	.124
Age	0.00	0.03	−0.12	.907	−0.01	−0.21	0.19
Exclusivity	−0.83	0.75	−1.11	.271	−0.24	−0.68	0.19
Parent	1.52	1.02	1.48	.141	0.45	−0.15	1.04
Relationship	−0.00	0.67	−0.00	1.000	−0.00	−0.39	0.39
Sexual satisfaction	−0.93	0.23	−3.99	< .001	−0.37	−0.55	−0.19
Mental wellbeing	1.16	0.51	2.26	.026	0.28	0.03	0.52
COPE—Social supports	0.52	0.41	1.26	.212	0.12	−0.07	0.30
COPE—Problem-focused	0.66	0.51	1.30	.197	0.14	−0.08	0.36
COPE—Avoidance	0.31	0.62	0.51	.612	0.05	−0.15	0.25
COPE—Positive thinking	0.92	0.48	1.93	.056	0.17	0.00	0.34
Self-compassion	−1.98	0.58	−3.40	< .001	−0.44	−0.70	−0.19
Perceived stigma	−0.11	0.20	−0.53	.597	−0.05	−0.22	0.13

Note. b refers to the unstandardized estimate, whereas β refers to the standardized estimate. The variables ‘Exclusivity', ‘Parent’ and ‘Relationship’ were all entered as dichotomous predictors (scored 0 = no, 1 = yes). Predictors starting with ‘COPE’ refer to the facets of the COPE scale. Significant predictors are presented in bold typeface.

Lievesley, R., & Harper, C. A. (2022). Applying desistance principles to improve wellbeing and prevent child sexual abuse among minor-attracted persons. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 28(1), 1–14. doi:10.1080/13552600.2021.1883754

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lievesley, R., Harper, C. A., & Swaby, H. (2022a). Exploring the effect of specialist training on professional practices when working with minor-attracted persons. Journal of Sexual Aggression. [Revised manuscript submitted]

 Google Scholar

Lievesley, R., Swaby, H., Harper, C. A., & Woodward, E. (2022b). Primary health professionals’ beliefs, experiences, and willingness to treat minor attracted persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 51(2), 923–943. doi:10.1007/s10508-021-02271-7

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar