Analysis base: 70 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 = 70, multiple selections possible)
Category n %
Single-country focus 31 44
Multi-country comparative study 17 24
Global / international 15 21
UK & EU candidate countries 11 16
EU-level focus 7 10

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 = 70 papers, multiple counting)
Country n %
United Kingdom 27 39
Australia 12 17
Spain 12 17
United States 10 14
Canada 6 9
New Zealand 6 9
Netherlands 4 6
Portugal 4 6
Belgium 3 4
Denmark 3 4
Italy 3 4
Germany 2 3
Ireland 2 3
South Korea 2 3
Austria 1 1
Czech Republic 1 1
France 1 1
Greece 1 1
Latvia 1 1
Mexico 1 1
Philippines 1 1
Poland 1 1
Sweden 1 1
Switzerland 1 1

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 = 70, one category per paper)
Research Focus n %
Victim experiences & impact
e.g. psychological consequences of IBSA; help-seeking behaviour; victim impact of cybercrime 		28 40
Legal & policy analysis
e.g. EU regulation of IBSA; deepfakes and human rights; rape shield laws 		16 23
Perpetrator characteristics & behaviour
e.g. offender characteristics; sextortion tactics; IBSA proclivity 		11 16
Prevalence & measurement
e.g. prevalence of online sexual harassment; IBSA across UK/NZ/AUS; bibliometric study 		11 16
Youth & adolescents
e.g. adolescent sexting & DRV; online privacy attitudes; grooming in childhood 		9 13
Gender & intersectionality
e.g. safer sexting & gender identity; bystander perceptions of victims 		5 7
Platform & technology
e.g. generative AI & sextortion; platforms’ role in online child sexual abuse 		3 4
No clear RQ 1 1

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 = 70, multiple selections possible)
Study Design n %
Quantitative empirical study 28 40
Qualitative empirical study 20 29
Legal analysis 12 17
Policy analysis 9 13
Mixed-methods study 8 11
Theoretical / conceptual paper 8 11
Other 8 11
Review paper 4 6
Methodological paper 1 1

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 = 70)
Definition Type n %
Formal definition provided 46 66
Conceptual / implicit definition 15 21
Mentioned but not defined 9 13

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 = 70, multiple selections possible)
Definition Type n %
Theoretical 24 34
Operational / empirical 13 19
Policy or regulatory 12 17
Legal 10 14
Other 3 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 = 70 papers, multiple counting per paper possible)
Theoretical Lens n %
Not specified / None 31 44
Feminist theory 10 14
Criminological theory 6 9
Technology-facilitated abuse / IBSA 6 9
Legal / Doctrinal 4 6
Psychological theory 4 6
Child protection framework 3 4

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 = 70 papers, multiple counting per paper possible)
Population Group n %
Adolescents / Youth 17 24
Adults (general) 17 24
Victims / Survivors 12 17
University students 9 13
Not specified 7 10
Other / Mixed 7 10
Professionals / Practitioners 4 6
Offenders / Perpetrators 2 3
General population 1 1

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 = 70, multiple selections possible)
Population Role n %
Persons targeted / affected (victims) 52 74
Persons engaging in abuse (perpetrators) 31 44
Bystanders / intermediaries 16 23
Practitioners 12 17
Other 7 10

Figure

Generated with R / tidyverse – 05.04.2026 12:44