'Letting the future in' a therapeutic intervention for child sexual abuse – Children's and parent/carers' perspectives

Few studies seek to understand children and their parent/carers’ experiences of therapeutic interventions for child sexual abuse (CSA), despite evidence that service users may have different perceptions of their needs to... [ view full abstract ]

Few studies seek to understand children and their parent/carers’ experiences of therapeutic interventions for child sexual abuse (CSA), despite evidence that service users may have different perceptions of their needs to those treating them (Drauker et.al, 1997). Involving children affected by CSA in research raises ethical issues including the risk of re-traumatising them post-therapy or disrupting the therapeutic alliance if they are still engaged, and maintaining anonymity and confidentiality (Hutchfield and Coren 2010).
Objective: to examine children’s and parent/carers’ perceptions of ‘Letting the Future In’ (LTFI).
Method: 15 children who had experienced CSA and had completed LTFI were selected as the focus for a series of family case studies. Within each case, we invited the child, their non-offending parent/carer, and their practitioner(s) to participate. Twelve children (aged 5-18 years, seven girls and five boys, all White-British) 17 parent/carers and 16 practitioners were interviewed.
Results: LTFI was strongly valued by all respondents. Children self-reported a range of positive changes in mood and behaviour. They developed strong therapeutic relationships with practitioners and could clearly recall ‘significant’ therapeutic interventions to which they attributed these changes. Carers tended to value the child-focused element of LTFI more strongly than carer support sessions, and were also more likely to report some dissatisfaction with LTFI in general. Carer satisfaction was associated with the child’s perceived recovery, and the strong therapeutic relationship between the child and practitioner.
Conclusions: Children’s and parent/carers' views can and should be included in evaluations of CSA interventions. The implications for therapeutic work are discussed.