Analysis base: 49 papers (completes after screenout filter)

CO19 – Geographic Scope (coded)

CO19 captures the geographic focus of the publication as a multiple-choice variable.
Values = 2 indicate “checked” (selected), values = 1 indicate “not checked”.

Tabelle

CO19 – Geographic Scope (N = 49, multiple selections possible)
Category n %
Single-country focus 21 43
Multi-country comparative study 11 22
Global / international 11 22
UK & EU candidate countries 10 20
EU-level focus 7 14

Grafik

CO20 – Countries Mentioned (open text field)

CO20 contains free-text entries for specific countries. Papers mentioning multiple countries
are counted once per country (multiple counting).

Tabelle

CO20 – Countries Mentioned (N = 49 papers, multiple counting)
Country n %
United Kingdom 19 39
Spain 8 16
United States 8 16
Australia 7 14
Canada 5 10
Italy 3 6
Netherlands 3 6
Portugal 3 6
Belgium 2 4
Germany 2 4
Ireland 2 4
New Zealand 2 4
Austria 1 2
Denmark 1 2
France 1 2
Greece 1 2
Latvia 1 2
Philippines 1 2
Poland 1 2
South Korea 1 2
Sweden 1 2
Switzerland 1 2

CO01 – Research Focus

CO01 is a free-text field capturing the main research question(s) or aims of each publication.
Each paper has been assigned to one primary thematic category based on its dominant focus.

Table

CO01 – Research Focus (N = 49, one category per paper)
Research Focus n %
Victim experiences & impact
e.g. psychological consequences of IBSA; help-seeking behaviour; victim impact of cybercrime 		15 31
Legal & policy analysis
e.g. EU regulation of IBSA; deepfakes and human rights; rape shield laws 		9 18
Youth & adolescents
e.g. adolescent sexting & DRV; online privacy attitudes; grooming in childhood 		7 14
Perpetrator characteristics & behaviour
e.g. offender characteristics; sextortion tactics; IBSA proclivity 		6 12
Prevalence & measurement
e.g. prevalence of online sexual harassment; IBSA across UK/NZ/AUS; bibliometric study 		6 12
Gender & intersectionality
e.g. safer sexting & gender identity; bystander perceptions of victims 		2 4
Platform & technology
e.g. generative AI & sextortion; platforms’ role in online child sexual abuse 		2 4
No clear RQ 1 2

Figure

CO02 – Study Design

CO02 captures the overall study design of each publication as a multiple-choice variable.
Values = 2 indicate “checked” (selected), values = 1 indicate “not checked”.

Table

CO02 – Study Design (N = 49, multiple selections possible)
Study Design n %
Quantitative empirical study 20 41
Qualitative empirical study 12 24
Legal analysis 11 22
Policy analysis 9 18
Mixed-methods study 6 12
Other 6 12
Theoretical / conceptual paper 5 10
Review paper 4 8
Methodological paper 1 2

Figure

CO03 – Definition Filter

CO03 indicates whether the publication provides an explicit definition or conceptualisation
of image-based abuse / sextortion.

Table

CO03 – Definition Filter (N = 49)
Definition Type n %
Formal definition provided 29 59
Conceptual / implicit definition 12 24
Mentioned but not defined 8 16

Figure

CO08 – Definition Type

CO08 captures what type of definition is used in publications that provide one,
as a multiple-choice variable. Values = 2 indicate “checked”.

Table

CO08 – Definition Type (N = 49, multiple selections possible)
Definition Type n %
Theoretical 10 20
Legal 8 16
Policy or regulatory 8 16
Operational / empirical 8 16
Other 2 4

Figure

CO09 – Theoretical Lens

CO09 is a free-text field asking for the theoretical lens or conceptual framework used.
Entries have been grouped into thematic categories. Entries that did not name a theory
(e.g. method descriptions, results quotes, “not specified”, “none”) are coded as
Not specified / None.
Multiple entries per paper are possible.

Table

CO09 – Theoretical Lens (N = 49 papers, multiple counting per paper possible)
Theoretical Lens n %
Not specified / None 25 51
Feminist theory 4 8
Legal / Doctrinal 4 8
Child protection framework 3 6
Criminological theory 3 6
Psychological theory 3 6
Technology-facilitated abuse / IBSA 3 6

Figure

CO05 – Study Population

CO05 is a free-text field describing the study population. Entries have been grouped
into thematic categories. Multiple entries per paper are possible.

Table

CO05 – Study Population (N = 49 papers, multiple counting per paper possible)
Population Group n %
Adolescents / Youth 15 31
Adults (general) 9 18
Victims / Survivors 7 14
Not specified 6 12
University students 6 12
Other / Mixed 5 10
Professionals / Practitioners 3 6
Offenders / Perpetrators 2 4
General population 1 2

Figure

CO06 – Population Role

CO06 captures how the study population is positioned in relation to sextortion /
image-based abuse, as a multiple-choice variable. Values = 2 indicate “checked”.

Table

CO06 – Population Role (N = 49, multiple selections possible)
Population Role n %
Persons targeted / affected (victims) 38 78
Persons engaging in abuse (perpetrators) 24 49
Bystanders / intermediaries 10 20
Practitioners 7 14
Other 5 10

Figure

Generated with R / tidyverse – 27.03.2026 11:37