Table 3. Stakeholders’ views—Study characteristics.

Study reference	Setting	Stakeholder group	N	Study type	MMAT score
Ahrens (2000) [34]	2 SANE programs, Michigan, US	SANE staff	n/s	Qualitative interviews + review of service documents	5
Belew (2012) [37]	Chicago Children's Advocacy Centre (CCAC), US	Staff (mental health therapists working within 5 Child Advocacy Centres)	n = 5	Online questionnaire survey, including free text questions	3
Bows (2018) [110]	Various sites, England, UK	Mixed stakeholders (SARC staff and other professional stakeholders from various services including rape crisis, domestic violence organisations, and services that work with male survivors)	n = 23	Qualitative interviews (5 out of 23 were SARC staff)	5
Brooker (2015) [25]	25 unspecified SARCs, England, UK	SARC staff	n = 25	Online questionnaire survey	2
Brooker (2018) [111]	England, UK (national)	SARC staff (Forensic physicians)	n = 45	Online questionnaire survey	4
Burton (2002) [112]	CAC, Kentucky, US	Other professionals (local GPs working with Child Advocacy Centres)	n = 7	Written questionnaire survey	4
Campbell (1998) [113]	22 unspecified sites, US	Staff (21/22 sites including a SART program) and adult SART service users (5 sites)	n/s	Qualitative interviews (with staff from all 22 programs and service users from 5 programs)	5
Campbell (2005; 2006) [44, 115]	Unspecified SANE programs, US	SANE staff	n = 110	Structured (telephone) interviews	4; 5
Campbell (2013) [114]	2 Midwestern SANE programs, US	SANE service users, female, age 14–17 (from two SANE programs)	n = 20	Qualitative interviews	5
Clark (1998) [116]	Child Sexual Abuse Response Team (CSART), Georgia, US	CSART staff	n = 13	Qualitative interviews	3
Cole (2007; 2008) [117, 126]	SARTs, Kentucky, US	SART staff (SART program staff n = 31) and other professional stakeholders (n = 48)	n = 79	Telephone questionnaire survey	5
COSAI (2012) [124]	7 European countries	Mixed stakeholders (sexual assault service’ staff and other professional stakeholders from 7 countries, four with SARC-type services)	n = 22	Qualitative telephone interviews	2
Cowley (2014) [118]	SANEs, England, UK	SANE nurses	n = 5	Qualitative interviews	5
Downing (2012) [119]	SANEs, Iowa, US	SANE staff (	n = 14	Qualitative interviews	5
Du Mont (2004) [54]	15 Sexual Assault Care and Treatment Centres(SACTCs), Ontario, Canada	SACTCS staff (physicians working in Sexual Assault Care and Treatment Centres)	n = 31	Written questionnaire survey	4
Du Mont (2009) [120]	30 SADVTCs, Ontario, Canada	Service users (adult women using Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Treatment Centres)	n = 19	Qualitative interviews	5
Du Mont (2014) [53]	30 unspecified SA/DVTCs, Ontario, Canada	Service users (using Sexual Assault / Domestic Violence Treatment Centres)	n = 993	Written questionnaire survey	4
Ericksen (2002) [121]	Specialised sexual assault service, British Columbia, Canada	Service users (adult women using a SANE program in a hospital emergency department)	n = 8	Qualitative interviews	5
Fong (2016)1 [60]	Philadelphia, Children’s Alliance Child Advocacy, US	Family carers of service users (caregivers of children under 13 using “Children’s Alliance”)	n = 22	Qualitative interviews	5
Goddard (2015)2 [62]	The Havens, London, England	Mixed stakeholders (SARC staff from the Havens and other professionals including doctors, CCCG children’s commissioners, CAMHS teams, third sector providers, nurses)	unclear	Online surveys and structured interview questionnaires	4
Harvey (2014)3 [125]	Wales, UK (Various sites)	Mixed stakeholders (SARC staff and other professional stakeholders from various services across the domestic and sexual violence, and LGBT sectors)	n = 18	Qualitative telephone interviews	5
Holton 2018 [72]	Eden District, South Africa (3 government hospitals)	Service users (adults, children, adolescents)	n = 10	Qualitative interviews	5
Lippert (2008)4 [78]	The Dallas Children’s Advocacy Centre, US	Family carers of service users (caregivers of children using a Child Advocacy Centre)	n = 45	Qualitative interviews	4
Lovett (2004)5 [20]	4 SARCs, Northern England, UK	SARC service users	n = 49	Qualitative interviews	5
		SARC staff and other professional stakeholders (police, prosecutors and victim support staff)	n = 110
Maier (2012) [122]	SANEs from 4 “East coast states”, US	SANE staff	n = 40	Qualitative interviews	5
Mathews (2013) [82]	Two dedicated sexual assault centres in Cape Town, Western Province, South Africa	Service users (n = 30 girls age 8–17) and family care-givers (n = 30)	n = 60	Qualitative interviews	5
Musgrave (2014) [86]	The Ferns centre in Suffolk and the Harbour Centre in Norfolk, SARCs, England, UK	SARC staff and other professional stakeholders (GUM clinic doctors, police, voluntary sector counsellors)	n = 31	Qualitative face-to-face and phone interviews	5
Olsen (2017) [90]	St Mary’s SARC, Manchester, England, UK	SARC staff	n = 42	Online questionnaire survey	5
Robinson (2009)6 [93]	Ynys Saff SARC, Cardiff, Wales, UK	Other professionals (senior police, health and voluntary agencies staff planning a new SARC service)	n = 15	Qualitative interviews (Pre-operational stage)	5
		Mixed stakeholders [SARC staff and other professional stakeholders (project lead, police, health, partner representatives]	n = 19	Qualitative interviews (Post-operational stage)
Robinson (2011)7 [123]	SARCs, England and Wales, UK	SARC service users, staff and other stakeholders	n = 93	Qualitative interviews	4
Ruch (1980)8 [94]	Sexual assault treatment centre, Western US	SARC service users (adults using one Sexual Assault Treatment Centre), SARC staff and other professionals	n/s	Written questionnaires with all stakeholders and analysis of medical records	1
Schönbucher (2009) 9 [97]	Archway Glasgow SARC, Scotland, UK	Mixed stakeholders (SARC staff and Steering Group’s members)	n = 33	Online surveys or written questionnaires, and qualitative interviews	5
		SARC service users	n = 23

*Note: Two studies were reported in two papers each (Cole 2007, 2008 and Campbell 2005, 2006). n/s = not specified.

¹ Fong (2016) compared experiences of caregivers of children using SARC like services (n = 12) and other sexual assault services (n = 10)

² Goddard (2015) reviewed the service pathways following sexual assault for children and young people in London, UK. The researchers interviewed professionals from various settings, including the Havens SARCs in London. The Havens accept referrals of adults and children and young people that have been victims of sexual assault.

³ Harvey (2014) interviewed participants from various settings including the Amethyst and Ynys Saff SARCs; n for participants from each setting was not reported.

⁴ Lippert (2018) explored experiences of caregivers experiences with children who attended therapy at the Child Advocacy Centre (n = 25) or who declined therapy (n = 20).

⁵ Lovett (2004) included 49/56 service user interviews from SARC services and 110/136 professional stakeholder interviews from SARC service areas: the others were from comparison areas with no SARC provision. Only views from SARC stakeholder interviews are summarised here.

⁶ Robinson (2009) conducted a process evaluation of the Ynys Saff SARC in Cardiff, Wales. Seven of the participants that were interviewed during the pre-operational phase were also interviewed in the post-operational phase.

⁷ Robinson (2011) interviewed participants from 3 SARCs and 3 voluntary sector rape crisis settings; n for participants from each setting and participant group was not reported.

⁸ Ruch (1980) report recommendations from structured surveys with several stakeholder groups: which groups’ responses prompted each recommendation is not explicitly reported.

⁹ Schonbucher (2009) conducted an evaluation of the pilot Archway Glasgow SARC, and interviewed staff in two phases between April 2007 and March 2009. Most staff were interviewed. twice. In the first phase, 23 SARC nurses and 10 SARC doctors were interviewed. In the second phase, 10 SARC nurses and 14 SARC doctors were interviewed. It is unclear how many Steering Group members were interviewed.