Abstract
While sexual violence on university campuses is a widespread issue, universities have been slow to implement interventions to respond to or prevent sexual violence. Primary prevention interventions address the root causes of sexual violence, and universities offer a unique opportunity for implementing them through a whole-of-university approach. Using a scoping review method, we mapped existing peer-reviewed literature from high-income countries on university sexual violence prevention programs. We searched Medline, PsycINFO, SOCIndex, Proquest, and Scopus. Studies were included if they were a sexual violence primary prevention program in a university setting. We included 40 articles and mapped these to a whole-of-university framework and found that programs were mostly categorized in the domains of teaching and learning or student life. There was an overreliance on programs targeting values and behavior, with limited focus on larger structural change. In general, studies were predominantly from the United States, and interventions were piecemeal and often one-off education programs, with limited longitudinal evaluations. Primary prevention was inconsistently conceptualized across the studies. We recommend a concerted focus on a primary prevention, whole-of-university approach.
Introduction
Sexual violence on university campuses is a widespread issue (Fedina et al., 2018; Heywood et al., 2022; Steele et al., 2023). While some universities have made some progress in addressing the issue, such as providing prevention programs, these have often been piecemeal and lacking in evidence. To date, it is unclear to what extent universities have focused on primary prevention, and there has not been a study evaluating primary prevention interventions at universities. The current study seeks to address this gap in knowledge through a scoping review that maps primary prevention programs against the whole-of-university framework, Educating for Equality published by the Australian organization Our Watch (2021).
This scoping review employs the World Health Organization (WHO, 2013) definition of sexual violence, that is: “any sexual act, attempt to obtain a sexual act, or other act directed against a person’s sexuality using coercion, by any person regardless of their relationship to the victim, in any setting.” We position our research in an intersectional feminist approach (Crenshaw, 1989), which situates sexual violence as an issue beyond individuals to consider the larger social forces, or drivers of sexual violence, that are embedded across culture (Gavey, 2005; Kelly et al., 1996). The drivers of sexual violence are rooted in gender inequalities, racism, homophobia, colonialism, poverty, and other forms of structural oppression at every level of the ecological framework: individual, interpersonal, institutional, and societal (Gibbs et al., 2020; Heise, 1998; Hirsch & Khan, 2020; Hooker et al., 2021; Moreton-Robinson, 2009).
Prevalence of Sexual Violence in Universities
Universities are often hierarchical and patriarchal, with cultures that promote sexual violence (Poyares, 2023). Universities, as well as other institutions, often frame sexual violence as an interpersonal or individual issue, obfuscating the power dynamics and inequalities at play, which the structural understanding of sexual violence employed in this paper can help to make clear. Colpitts (2022) posits that sexual violence must be understood alongside the structural inequities of academic institutions, requiring a truly intersectional approach to make change, but this is often missed in prevention efforts. A lack of acknowledgment and understanding of the way that sexual violence is embedded across culture and opaque institutional dynamics is a key driver of high prevalence rates at universities (Heywood et al., 2022).
The prevalence of sexual violence perpetration and victimization in universities has significant global variation, likely due to differences in cultural norms, definitions, and methodologies. Any prevalence studies suffer from low reporting rates and need to be considered with caution, and as such, prevalence is likely to be higher than what has been reported (Dartnall & Jewkes, 2013). Research demonstrates that regardless of the victim’s gender, the vast majority of perpetrators are men, likely known to the victim (Steele et al., 2022). In contrast, women, particularly young women of university age and LGBTQ+ communities, face disproportionately higher risks compared to the rest of the population (Borumandnia et al., 2020; Hindes et al., 2025; Ison et al., 2025; Klein et al., 2023). A global systematic review by Steele et al. (2023) found that 17.5% of women students experience sexual assault. In Australia, a 2021 national survey on university student experiences of sexual assault and harassment, called the National Student Safety Survey (Heywood et al., 2022), found that of the 43,819 respondents, 1 in 6 experienced sexual harassment and 5% experienced sexual assault after enrollment, with significantly higher prevalence rates among women and gender-diverse populations. In the United States, a systematic review of the prevalence of sexual violence in universities found that, while difficult to compare due to research design and variability in definition, sexual coercion and unwanted sexual contact were the most common forms of sexual violence on campuses (Fedina et al., 2018). Incapacitated rape, followed by completed or attempted rape were the next most common (Fedina et al., 2018).
People who face intersecting forms of inequality, including systemic forms of oppression such as racism, transphobia, or ableism, are more likely still to experience sexual violence in universities (Baeza Robba et al., 2026). Harris (2020) explored the intersection of race and gender and found that systems of domination meant that women students of color had different experiences with campus sexual assault, but this was not taken into account by university services. International students are also more likely to experience campus sexual violence (Fethi et al., 2023) and face difficulties reporting (Tarzia et al., 2025; Tran et al., 2024). Similarly, students of diverse genders and sexualities are at increased risk of experiencing sexual violence on campus, and have reported up to 74% more sexually violent acts than their cisgender heterosexual male peers (Kammer-Kerwick et al., 2019). Across these studies, these prevalence rates are likely to be underestimated due to underreporting and stigmatization of the issue (Lievore, 2003).
In university settings, some of the drivers of sexual violence are well-studied. The normalization of gender roles, sexually aggressive behaviors, excessive alcohol consumption, and cultures that are reinforced by social hierarchies all contribute to the heightened risk of sexual violence on campus (Armstrong et al., 2006; Ison et al., 2024; Jewkes et al., 2015; Senn et al., 2014). Gendered power imbalances, status, and inequality at each of the levels of the ecological framework also increase the likelihood of sexual violence because traditional, hegemonic constructions of masculinity often valorize dominance and sexual predation (Flood & Burrell, 2022; Hirsch & Khan, 2020). The ecological model, first developed by Bronfenbrenner (1979) and further developed by Heise (1998) to be relevant for violence against women, conceptualizes how behaviors are shaped by interconnecting and overlapping levels of influence, emphasizing how structural inequalities shape risk and protection across those levels for individuals. The persistence of rape myths further creates an environment where perpetrators feel justified in their actions and survivors are silenced or dismissed (Suarez & Gadalla, 2010). Excessive alcohol consumption can also increase the likelihood of sexual violence on campus and is evident within university settings, as in wider society (Abbey, 2011). Indeed, alcohol consumption “is a recognized tool within male drinking cultures for facilitating sexual predation” (Ison et al., 2024, p. 13). In universities, inadequate policies or inconsistent enforcement of those policies, and a lack of reporting mechanisms, can also perpetuate a climate where sexual violence occurs (McMahon, 2015).
It is important to note, however, that much of the research on university sexual violence is published in the United States, where there are specific cultural contexts and norms. In addition, a large proportion of the research is with respondents who are predominantly white, middle-class, straight women, which is in part due to the over-saturation of United States-based studies. Further, research on the drivers of sexual violence in university settings has tended to focus on gender to the exclusion of other issues such as race and class (Hush, 2023).
Risk Factors
Risk factors are a common framing in research on sexual violence victimisation and perpetration, which we elsewhere offer some critique of (Ison et al., 2025). In university settings risk factors have been studied in terms of temporality (risk is increased at certain points, for example, the first year and second years of college; Follingstad et al., 2023), and/or situational (for example, living in a residence on campus; Follingstad et al., 2023). Though we note that the review of the literature on temporal risk factors by Follingstad et al. (2023) was focused on students in the United States, where living on campus is common and in other settings, such as Canada, research does not support the existence of a “red zone” where risk is heightened at different times (Jeffrey et al., 2023). Hence, the transferability of this risk factor should be cautioned when considering students in other countries with different university norms and cultures. Elsewhere, Bonar et al. (2022) have called for further research on time-varying risk factors for sexual violence at universities across the ecological model. They identify risk factors at each level of the ecological framework (individual, relationship, campus context/broader community, and culture) that must be taken into account in university prevention efforts. For male perpetrators, Spencer et al. (2023) performed a meta-analysis and found three categories of risk markers for sexual assault on campus: hegemonic masculinity, other forms of dating violence, and a university party culture. The authors posit that prevention programs should focus on peer education, enabling student leaders to challenge gender norms and sexual assault acceptance, and healthy substance use and respectful relationship education. Malamuth et al.’s (1991) confluence model also provides insight into men’s risk of violence and, among college men, demonstrated, for example, that the interaction of hostile masculinity and impersonal sex predicts heightened risk of sexual violence, as one pillar of their integrated four-pillar model (Malamuth et al., 2021). Though we note some concern with their use of the term “impersonal sex,” as it could contain some moral overtones. People should be able to engage in casual sexual practices with people they may not know. We would instead re-conceptualize this around heterosexual sex practices where men do not see their sexual partner as a whole person.
Primary Prevention
Across efforts seeking to address sexual violence in different sectors, including health, education, and government, there has been an increasing focus on primary prevention. We use the Our Watch (2021) definition of primary prevention as “[a]ctions taken at a whole-of-population level before the negative health outcome occurs to stop it from happening.” We have a somewhat more pragmatic understanding of primary prevention programs as those which aim to prevent sexual violence (in this case) before it occurs, and may be universal (directed at a general population) or selected (aimed at individuals of increased risk; DeGue et al., 2014). In the United States, Nation et al. (2003) developed nine general characteristics of effective primary prevention programs for a range of public health issues. These were programs that: “included varied teaching methods, provided sufficient dosage, were theory driven, provided opportunities for positive relationships, were appropriately timed, were socioculturally relevant, included outcome evaluation, and involved well-trained staff” (Nation et al., 2003, p. 1). For sexual violence primary prevention programs specifically, DeGue et al. (2014), also based in the United States, built on Nations et al.’s (2003) characteristics to identify effective primary prevention programs, but noted that programs must be designed specifically for a population to be effective. An effective primary prevention program for sexual violence must therefore include components that are “evidence-based, comprehensive, [and] multi-level strateg[ies]” (p. 358). Porat et al. (2024), in a recent meta-analysis of the literature on primary prevention of sexual violence since 1985, found that most efforts have focused on changing attitudes and beliefs, often with an educational approach, but behavior change has not followed. A primary prevention program that aims to change beliefs and knowledge does not necessarily reduce victimization or perpetration of sexual violence (Porat et al., 2024).
Hooker et al. (2020) give examples of effective or promising primary prevention interventions across the different levels of the socioecological framework, but highlight that there are very few programs that go beyond individual attitude and behavior change, which is needed for true primary prevention. For university-specific prevention approaches, Bonar et al. (2022) similarly found that for primary prevention to be successful beyond individual programs, there needs to be a comprehensive approach with multiple focuses that includes shifting attitudes, program and policy development, and empowering victim/survivors as well as bystanders, which is most effective.
Although not the focus of this study, in prevention and response research and practice, there has been a shift toward strengths-based approaches and protective factors, or “poly-strengths” to prevent or insulate against sexual violence (Hamby et al., 2018; Vrankovich et al., 2025). Rather than a risk-based approach, which identifies problems, a strengths-based approach seeks to understand what is working to support primary prevention, build respectful and positive relationships and communities and create cultures of safety and respect (Bryant et al., 2021; Fogarty et al., 2018; Hindes, 2026). Bystander interventions, some of the most often-funded studies, can also fit in this approach by increasing the likelihood that members of the community may more actively work to prevent sexual violence and be more receptive to prevention messages (Banyard et al., 2004), resulting in positive attitude and behavior changes (Mujal et al., 2021). An early bystander program is the Mentors in Violence program first developed in 1993 that targeted men for the prevention of sexual violence with a bystander approach that was rooted in feminist theory and practice. This is unlike, Katz (2018) argues, more recent bystander interventions that are focused on individuals and are less likely to educate participants on gender norms. Though a recent example, the Bringing in the Bystander program for sexual violence prevention, does have a robust evidence base, and a meta-analysis found that there is positive change in attitudes around rape myth acceptance and reduction in rape-supporting attitudes and increased likelihood that students would intervene to prevent an incident of sexual violence (Bouchard et al., 2024). However, Hooker et al. (2020) note that bystander programs are not necessarily primary prevention as defined above. Bystander interventions are also often developed in response to neoliberal imperatives to measure outcomes for ongoing funding, and while awareness of the issue is increased as a result, actual behavior change from these programs that has a primary prevention impact is difficult to measure and is less well documented in the literature (Katz, 2018; Mujal et al., 2021). Because of the large number of studies that have examined the efficacy of bystander programs for attitude change and anticipated behavior change, as well as the recent systematic review by Mujal et al. (2021), we have made the conscious and deliberate decision to exclude them from the current study.
University Responses
Increasingly, due to groundswell activism, university administration has been forced to take the issue of sexual violence seriously (Bovill et al., 2021). In the United Kingdom, because of student activism, the Universities UK (2018) Taskforce was set up to inform victimization and perpetration response and prevention initiatives, and evaluate the progress of universities’ ongoing work. In the United States, the groundbreaking documentary Hunting Ground (Dick, 2015) documented sexual assault on university campuses, inspiring student activism. In Australia, the organization End Rape on Campus (2018) was formed to advocate for university responses that centered on victim-survivors. Due to such advocacy, 39 Australian Universities commissioned the Change the Course study (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017), which surveyed Australian university students. Australian universities responded to this landmark report through a variety of strategies, such as bystander campaigns, communication campaigns, and the creation of sexual violence response units. In 2025, the Australian Government also introduced legislation, titled the National Higher Education Code to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence (The National Code), to bring in mandatory minimum standards of reporting and action for universities and other higher education institutions (Roberts et al., 2026). Less well known is student activism and grassroots interventions from low- and middle-income countries (Baeza Robba et al., 2026).
However, while student activism has been instrumental in changing university culture and forcing the university administration to take sexual violence seriously, there has also been a considerable reluctance to implement meaningful changes (Henry, 2024; Lewis & Anitha, 2019; Wooten & Mitchell, 2015). Rather, universities have tended toward neoliberal responses that do not challenge the status quo (Ahmed, 2021).
A further challenge is that universities are embedded within their sociocultural, economic, and political structures, so prevention programs must be embedded across the university to create lasting change (Hirsch & Khan, 2020). To meaningfully make sexual violence less common on campus, a change in the social drivers is required, argue Hirsch and Khan (2020). Framing sexual violence as a social and public health issue rather than an individual or interpersonal issue places the focus and the responsibility on the systems that enable sexual violence, but requires a change in the way that many current prevention initiatives are envisioned (Brush & Miller, 2023). Taking a systems approach to addressing sexual violence is therefore necessary to deliver sustainable changes and improve student safety (Munro-Kramer et al., 2025), but it is complex to engage the entire university community with single programs, and difficult to shift sociocultural norms and power dynamics without a coordinated framework (Beres et al., 2019). A whole-of-university approach to developing and evaluating interventions is one solution to this challenge because it can capture the complexity of implementing multiple prevention interventions on campus across different areas and types of work with staff (both academic and professional) and students while addressing policy and providing staff and student support (Beres et al., 2019). Universities Australia (2023), the peak body for the sector in Australia, advocates for a whole-of-university approach, also termed a whole-of-institution approach, as critical so that prevention efforts do not fall to one individual or department, but instead help to build capacity and capability across the organization and create positive, safer environments. A whole-of-university response can also reduce the response “versus” prevention argument for resource allocation when programs and teams are more interconnected (Lichty et al., 2008). In Australia, Our Watch has developed a comprehensive whole-of-university framework to meet this challenge.
Our Watch Whole-of-University Framework
Our Watch is an Australian not-for-profit organization established in 2013 by the Australian Government and Victorian State Governments to lead work in the primary prevention of violence against women as a key initiative under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (Council of Australian Governments, 2011). In 2016, Australian universities launched Respect. Now. Always a body of work that aimed to prevent sexual violence and better increase the service system’s response to sexual violence in universities. Much of this was in light of the first national survey on student sexual violence, reported in the Change the Course report (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2017). Our Watch later partnered with Universities Australia, the university peak body, to launch Educating for Equality in Our Watch (2021). The report was developed with key stakeholders in universities, and the program of work has been piloted across four Australian universities to date. Though, as yet, no evaluation of these pilots has been published.
In the university sector, the Educating for Equality (Our Watch, 2021) whole-of-university framework (henceforth: the whole-of-university framework) is a tool that draws on available evidence to enable a whole-of-university approach to prevent sexual violence in universities. The whole-of-university framework recommends coordinated action across five key domains where universities can create meaningful change (Student Life; Teaching and Learning; Workplace; Research Practice; and, Business and Operations), and three key levers (Values and Behaviors; Structure and Policy Change; and, Cultures and Norms) that indicate how (rather than where) universities can create change through a comprehensive program of work rather than isolated initiatives (Table 1).
Our Watch’s (2021) Whole-of-University Framework Domains and Levers.
The whole-of-university framework’s strength is in its recognition that effective prevention requires action at multiple levels and in varying ways. A multi-level approach acknowledges that prevention work must transform not only individual attitudes but also institutional structures and societal norms that perpetuate gender inequality and sexual violence, such as patriarchal hierarchical structures that are embedded in universities. For the current study, the Our Watch whole-of-university framework provides a structure to conduct a scoping review because it focuses on primary prevention, while acknowledging the importance of having appropriate response systems as a foundation. The whole-of-university framework also recognizes the intersectional nature of gender inequality and risk of sexual violence, which is often lacking in the wider literature. However, we note throughout this article that sexual violence primary prevention is still in its infancy, and therefore, evidence is still emerging on what truly works. The whole-of-university framework is therefore built on some imperfect research. We are not using this whole-of-university framework because we think it is the end point of research in this area, but rather as somewhat of a starting point for synthesizing evidence and advocating for a more holistic approach.
It is important to note our use of language. Our Watch uses the term gender-based violence, but we are using the whole-of-university framework to focus on sexual violence; therefore, we will use that language in this study. Sexual violence is an ever-evolving term that can hold different meanings across cultures, contexts, and legal systems. As noted, we adopt the WHO definition, and we use this as expansively as possible while also situating sexual violence in broader cultural structures. However, we will also use the terms that each study adopts to describe their data, to ensure we adhere to their conceptualization of sexual violence. By adopting the whole-of-university framework for our scoping review, we can systematically examine the ways that interventions evaluated in the included studies work across different domains and institutional levers, providing valuable evidence for effective primary prevention in universities.
The Current Study
There is limited collective knowledge about the range of primary prevention programs in universities, including their aims, scope, methods, target populations, measures, and effectiveness. The current study aims to assess how evaluated primary prevention interventions are aligned with the whole-of-university framework. A scoping review was considered the best methodology for this aim because “the scoping process requires analytical reinterpretation of the literature” (Levac et al., 2010, p. 1). Thus, it enables our contribution of analyzing the existing literature on primary prevention in universities and applying a new analytical whole-of-university framework to it. Identifying gaps in the literature when the whole-of-university framework is applied will provide evidence for where future interventions should be focused.
Method
This study followed the extended guidelines for a scoping review outlined by Levac et al. (2010), which build on Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework. This involves a six-stage process.
Step 1: Identifying the Research Questions
The research has three overarching questions:
What peer-reviewed evaluation programs are being delivered in university settings?
Are programs aligned with the Our Watch whole-of-university framework?
What recommendations can we make for future research and intervention development?
We conceived of the term “prevention” broadly, as across the literature this tends to have two meanings. Either primary prevention, which as noted earlier, refers to addressing the root causes of sexual violence. Or second, preventing a sexual assault from happening. Interventions tend to straddle both of these definitions.
Step 2: Identifying Relevant Studies
To identify relevant studies, we searched Medline, PsycINFO, SOCIndex, Proquest, and Scopus. The following search terms were used (Table 2):
Search Terms.
Step 3: Study Selection
Papers were downloaded into EndNote and exported to Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2022), software that assists researchers to manage literature reviews. After removing duplicates, title and abstract screening was conducted by the first and second authors.
Conflicts were resolved by consensus. The first and second authors then conducted full-text screening by applying the same inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 3). Conflicts that could not be resolved by the first and second author were referred to the last author for a final decision, of which there were only two (one included and one excluded).
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria.
Of note, we opted for only including peer-reviewed studies as we were interested in studies that had been evaluated and published in the academic literature. In terms of focusing on high-income countries, we wanted to compare countries where universities had similar resources to ensure fair comparisons were made. For a discussion of gender-based violence interventions in low- and middle-income countries, see Baeza Robba et al. (2026).
Step 4: Charting the Data
The lead author and the second author discussed a data extraction table, which was created in Excel. The third author then extracted the data into the Excel table.
Step 5: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results
The lead, first, and third authors assessed the data extraction and mapped the programs to the domains and levers in the whole-of-university framework.
Researcher Positioning and Recovery
All authors are women academics. Author one has a PhD in gender studies, author two has a PhD in public health, author three has a PhD in sociology, author four has a Master’s in International Relations, and the final author has a PhD in public health. We used an intersectional feminist lens through which to guide the interpretation of the included literature. Given the sensitive nature of the topic and the potential for harm to the research team (Dickson-Swift, 2019), we adopted a trauma-informed approach to research well-being (Forsdike & Giles, 2024; Sexual Violence Research Initiative, 2015). Our approach included access to psychological well-being provided by the university and access to a researcher resilience community of practice (Kuruppu et al., 2025). The first, second, and third authors also met regularly for “check-ins,” and during screening, we limited the number of articles reviewed per day to allow space for reflection and recovery.
Results
Overview of Studies
The results are presented in the PRISMA (Figure 1; Tricco et al., 2017). The database search generated 4,881 studies, and after duplicates were removed, 3,468 studies were screened at title and abstract. There were 73 considered at the full text and 40 included in the study.
PRISMA.
Characteristics of Included Studies
The included 40 studies were published between 2012 and 2023, with no studies published in 2016. Around 80% (n = 32) of the studies were published in the United States (see Table 4 for study characteristics and Supplemental Appendix 1 for further detail). Five studies were conducted in Canada, and the remaining three studies were conducted in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The majority of the studies (n = 28, 70.0%) examined programs that were conducted on a university campus, 7 were online, and 2 were a mixture of online and in-person. One was in a university health center, and the remaining two were a mixture of university setting and neighborhood, and university setting and a high school. Fourteen of the interventions within studies lasted for less than 12 hr, and 10 interventions did not have a specified time frame because they were one-off promotion campaigns, posters, magazines, or computer games. Five interventions lasted 12 hr, 4 lasted between 8 and 14 weeks, 4 lasted for 1 university semester (university courses), and the 3 remaining lasted for 2 semesters (year-long course), 3 years, and an option of a 3-week course or a 10-week course within the intervention (Table 4). Sample sizes ranged from smaller cohorts (n = 20) to larger whole university online programs (n = 167,424). Studies had a tendency toward majority white, young participants. When not a specific men’s program, participants tended to be majority women, and there was limited focus on LGBTQ+ communities.
Included Study Characteristics.
Among the studies, there were a large number of interventions that were rigorously evaluated. The most common intervention was the Enhanced Assess, Acknowledge, Act (EAAA) program (n = 5, 12.2%), by Senn (2013) and Senn and colleagues (2015, 2017, 2020, 2022) in Canada and Crann et al. (2022) in the United States. Three United States studies evaluated the university course Sex, Power and Culture (Johnson et al., 2021, 2022; Lederer et al., 2023). 11 interventions were unnamed, and the remainder of the studies (n = 21) evaluated unique programs, representing a lack of cohesive programs across the literature (Supplemental Appendix 1). Among these interventions, there was a focus on the personal and relationship level, with little focus on whole-of-university response and prevention (discussed further below).
The study designs for the evaluations of the interventions included a lack of longitudinal data or process evaluation, and few randomized controlled trials (RCTs; Table 5). The majority of included studies were pre-post studies (n = 23, 57.5%), and other methods included surveys (n = 5, 12.2%), RCTs (n = 4, 9.8%), mixed methods (n = 4, 9.8%), and qualitative design (n = 2, 4.9%). The two remaining were quasi-experimental and randomized experimental design. However, many of the studies had short follow-up periods, with limited examples of longitudinal data. There was no common definition of primary prevention across the included studies, with nine studies (22.0%) not disclosing a definition of prevention (Supplemental Appendix 2). While some quantitative or mixed-methods studies used validated measures, others used bespoke measures designed for their program, making it difficult to compare results across studies (Supplemental Appendix 3).
Study Designs of Included Studies.
Whole-of-University Approach
Studies were classified by the approaches taken according to Our Watch’s (2021) whole-of-university framework (Table 6). As outlined in the introduction, Our Watch’s whole-of-university framework includes five domains (Teaching and Learning, Student life, Business and Operations, Workplace, and Research). These domains indicate where universities can act and make changes to prevent sexual violence. The whole-of-university framework also provides three key levers that indicate how (rather than where) universities can make change: Values and Behaviors; Structures and Policies; and Culture and Norms. Using this structural whole-of-university framework enables us to map programs to better understand where and how universities are focusing their prevention programs, and what gaps exist in the delivery of these programs to better prevent sexual violence as an issue rooted in the sociocultural, economic, and political structures of the university (Hirsch & Khan, 2020).
Our Watch “Whole-of-University Framework” Domains and Studies Sitting Within Them.
The following sections set out these domains and levers, identifying studies that sit within each of them, and what some of the outcomes of studies in each domain and lever were. While there was overlap in some of the studies that could have been placed across multiple domains or levers, they have been allocated to a specific domain based on the key measures they used to evaluate or examine the outcomes of the program.
Teaching and Learning Domain
The overwhelming majority of interventions are targeted at the Teaching and Learning domain (n = 33, 82.5%, Table 6), which aims to improve students’ understanding of respect, gender, power, and consent (Our Watch, 2021, p. 15). Interventions in this domain included university courses, consent and sexual assault trainings, self-defense programs, and online modules (Table 6). For example, Senn (2013), Senn et al. (2015, 2017, 2020, 2022) developed and evaluated the 12 hr EAAA training program for Canadian women university students, and found that there was significantly reduced risk of “completed rape” among women who participated in the program (Senn et al., 2015), and there was a significant reduction in sexual assault due to three primary mediators: risk detection, direct resistance and self-defense self-efficacy (Senn et al., 2020). In Senn et al. (2022) also found significantly reduced self-blame among all women. The EAAA program was the program that had the highest number of evaluations, with five individual studies and had clear evidence-based outcomes. Another self-defense program in the Teaching and Learning domain was Hollander (2014), who ran a self-defense training program for women at a United States university over 10 weeks, and found that participants were less likely to report an assault than those in a comparison class, although the sample size was small and the reduced reporting outcome does not necessarily indicate a reduced risk of sexual violence. Other examples of programs included single short education programs. For example, Heard et al. (2023) evaluated a 45-min online module in an Australian university to engage students in education about consent and bystander intervention, but despite the module being available to all students, the sample size was too small to indicate efficacy of the program. Bonar et al. (2019) examined a 1.5 hr-long mixed gender (majority women) class in the United States on knowledge and attitudes about consent, but did not find an increase in knowledge around consent as a result of the one-off training. Also in the United States, Zapp et al. (2018) examined the impact of an hour-long online course with seven modules focused on values, healthy relationships, consent, bystander interventions, sexual assault misinformation and misperceptions, and gender socialization. The authors found that, in the short-term, the course changed perceptions of socially acceptable behavior and increased self-efficacy in bystander behavior.
Student Life Domain
The next most common domain for interventions in the included studies was Student Life (n = 5, 12.5%, Table 6). Student Life covers the environments that students engage in, which may be able to influence their attitudes toward sexual violence and its drivers (Our Watch, 2021, p. 15). Primary prevention interventions that operated in this domain were mass communication campaigns. Hust et al. (2017), for example, used a mass communication strategy on a United States campus via mini-magazines to achieve greater levels of self-efficacy in sexual assault prevention and shifted social norms among students. Ortiz and Shafer (2018), also in the United States, used a communication campaign, but focused on attitudes toward consent. Rather than a one-off training program focused on the topic, this program aimed to raise awareness of consent in the environments that students were in, and so while there is overlap with the Teaching and Learning domain, this program was placed in the Student Life domain. The authors, using pre-, during, and post-surveys with eight outcome measures to assess attitudes around consent, found that the campaign achieved significantly higher scores for positive sexual consent attitudes and understanding among undergraduate students.
Business and Operations, Workplace, and Research Domains
Finally, two studies (5.0%, Table 6) looked at interventions that were classified in the Business and Operations domain, one in the United States and one in the United Kingdom. These interventions were collaborations and promotional campaigns with external partners, because they influenced how students operate and engage within the university and with the broader community (Our Watch, 2021, p. 16). One of these studies, Potter et al. (2020), was the only study to clearly articulate a whole-of-university approach during a 3-year campaign to engage staff, students, and external personnel in sexual violence and response programs across multiple United States higher education institutions. We have placed the study in the Business and Operations domain because the collaboration with external partners, including police and rape crisis centers, resulted in the establishment and revision of campus sexual violence policies and procedures, and content for staff to include in their class materials about prevention and response to sexual violence. These actions were outcomes from university efforts to “operate and engage within the university and with the broader community. . . [giving] them a platform to model and promote their leadership in, and commitment to, gender equality and the prevention of gender-based violence” (Our Watch, 2021, p. 16), and so represent a whole-of-university response with a primarily Business and Operations impact (although there were also outcomes in the Teaching and Learning and Student Life domains). Similarly, Carline et al. (2018) in the United Kingdom ran a promotional campaign targeting young men to reduce rates of alcohol related rape, which could sit in the Student Life domain with other communication campaigns. However, in this case, the promotion campaign was in partnership with the local council, representing a program in collaboration with the wider community and a change in university operations. Carline et al. (2018) found that the campaign led male university students to have more conversations around sex, consent, rape, and masculinity, which disrupted prevailing norms and discourses.
The other two domains where universities can affect change, Workplace and Research, were not specifically covered by interventions included in this scoping review.
Levers
As with the domains in the previous section, the studies included in this scoping review are heavily weighted toward 1 lever, Values and Behaviors (n = 31, 77.5%, Table 7). The Values and Behaviors lever describes impact from universities through explicitly addressing gender equality as part of their values, and setting and modeling behaviors. Interventions classified in this lever were ones that included bystander training, healthy relationship training, programs that sought to shape students’ behaviors through education, self-defense programs, and risk reduction programs. For example, Stück et al. (2020), in Germany, evaluated a university curriculum that ran for 3 seminars over 14 weeks to educate and upskill students to respond to sexual violence issues. The authors found improved knowledge about institutional sexual violence and confidence in addressing sexual violence, but whether this translated to behavior change or change in the university setting was not clear. Wong et al. (2022) looked at a United States-based 45-min intervention of videos and activities aimed at perpetrators. It sought to reduce sexually aggressive behaviors, but found no self-perceived behavior change at the 6-month follow-up. Online programs were used in many of the studies. For example, also in the United States, Orchowski et al. (2023) developed and evaluated the pilot of an online application that aimed to prevent sexual violence through education and skill-building. The intervention resulted in a lower frequency of heavy drinking among participants at the 1 month follow-up. This is a behavior change clearly in the short-term, but the authors also found a change in social norms, which could place this study in the Culture and Norms lever, demonstrating the interconnectedness and overlapping nature of the whole-of-university framework, as well as the way that programs might work in multiple ways.
Our Watch “Whole-of-University Framework” Levers and Studies Sitting Within Them.
Eight included studies evaluated interventions classified in the Culture and Norms lever (20.0%, Table 7). According to Our Watch (2021), “cultures change by shifting the actual and assumed ‘rules’ of behavior within a given community. Norms shape expectations about appropriate behaviors among university staff and students” (p. 17). Programs that operated in this lever included those examining rape myth acceptance, the social determinants of sexual assault and violence, and mass marketing campaigns aimed at men and changing social norms. For example, Steinmetz et al. (2019) looked at a program in the United States that asked students to write a “cognitive dissonance essay” and then tested the change in rape myth acceptance, which was reduced and maintained at the 2-week follow-up assessment. A change in attitude and norms such as this was considered to reduce the risk that an individual will experience or perpetrate sexual violence. Thompson et al. (2020) similarly targeted cultural norms via a pilot program with United States university athletes, who they suggested were potentially able to influence wider university cultural norms. The program focused on social norms, although it also looked at behaviors such as alcohol consumption, and the authors found that the intervention significantly improved the knowledge, attitudes and perceived norms of male participants.
Only one study (2.5%, Table 7) evaluated an intervention that worked within the Structures and Policies lever. To work to prevent sexual violence in the university setting, universities can review their structures to ensure equal opportunity and an intersectional approach, and review policies to ensure they represent and include everyone (Our Watch, 2021, p. 17). The intervention in this lever focused on an interdisciplinary campus task force to improve prevention and response in residential colleges in the United States (Potter et al., 2020). As outlined in the Business and Operations domain, the authors found that the intervention resulted in the revision of existing policies and the development of new campus sexual violence prevention and response policies and procedures, specifically sexual misconduct policies, which once again focus on behavior. These are strong outcomes clearly evident in this lever and unique within the articles included in this scoping review. It is notable that many of the studies did not follow-up long after the intervention, so it is not known whether these outcomes were maintained over time, and therefore if there was a long-lasting shift in culture and norms as a result.
Discussion
This review aimed to map evaluated primary prevention interventions using the Our Watch whole-of-university framework (see Table 8 for a review of critical findings).
Critical Findings.
The current scoping review revealed significant limitations and gaps in the current landscape of sexual violence primary prevention programs in university settings. Mapping interventions against the whole-of-university framework highlighted that most peer-reviewed articles on university prevention programs do not take a systems approach to meaningfully address social drivers and therefore reduce sexual violence (Hirsch & Khan, 2020). The use of the whole-of-university framework demonstrated that there is a lack of programs and data in domains beyond teaching and learning, neglecting the other domains to encompass a whole-of-university approach. The results indicate that universities are not publishing on the development or evaluation of programs in other areas where they could have an impact on rates of sexual violence in universities. More programs that work to disrupt and address sexual violence in and across other areas of university operations, including in research, the workplace, and business and operations, would better demonstrate a concerted, committed, and coordinated approach to sexual violence prevention by universities. A whole-of-university approach can also remove responsibility from individuals or individual departments and build capability and action across the organization to create a safer, more welcoming culture (Universities Australia, 2023).
Similarly, most studies were focused on one way of working, using the Values and Behaviors lever to try to create change. By failing to develop programs that will change Cultures and Norms and Structures and Policies within university settings, universities are not working holistically or demonstrating a long-term commitment and strategy to preventing sexual violence on campus. The whole-of-university framework employed in this scoping review enabled a new analytical interpretation of the current literature (Levac et al., 2010) and revealed significant gaps in how universities are developing programs.
As noted, in the classification of studies in the whole-of-university domains and levers, there is some overlap where the studies could be classified to different or multiple domains and levers, demonstrating the interconnecting and overlapping nature of the whole-of-university framework. To classify included studies, we identified the key measures used in their evaluations. It is interesting that although not specified in the included articles, some of the authors are evaluating programs across different levers (Orchowski et al., 2023, in the United States). Future research could determine whether this is effective, or interventions should focus on one lever to target their efficacy.
Additionally, the bulk of the evidence was from the United States, and the dearth in other contexts should be considered a limitation in the literature. Further, this research can perpetuate United States imperialism through, for example, presuming a universal United States audience without situating the context of the research (including not even stating which country the study was conducted in), and by extension, the study makes universalizing claims for sexual violence prevention at universities. Another example is that research may be expected to include validated scales for program evaluation, but the only available validated scales are from the United States (see Appendix 3), which may lack cross-cultural validity, and therefore intervention approaches that are established as a result may not transfer effectively to different cultural contexts as they lack cultural specificity and nuance in other settings (DeGue et al., 2014). United States imperialism, like this, has profound implications for primary prevention of sexual violence programs outside the United States and particularly in non-western countries (Lynn, 2025; Shahjahan & Edwards, 2022) and should be carefully attended to in future research.
Further, participant demographics in studies, regardless of country, were notably homogeneous, featuring predominantly white participants across studies, including the studies from outside the United States, which, where listed, described their samples as predominantly or majority white. The included studies also demonstrate a concerning heteronormative focus, with the experience of students and staff of color, LGBTIQ+ students and staff, first-in-family students, low socioeconomic status students and students and staff with a disability largely neglected in this literature on the primary prevention of sexual violence in universities.
There are also very few studies looking at preventing perpetration, with programs tending to be generalized and lacking in tailored content. There were also very few programs with content aimed at international students. Methodological weaknesses were also prevalent across the included studies, with many utilizing short-term follow-up periods, if at all. Such short follow-up surveys after (usually) a one-off intervention fail to capture any lasting behavioral changes, or indeed the lack thereof. Even when follow-up was included, these studies mostly used surveys with limited qualitative data that could capture a more nuanced understanding of the intervention impact.
Finally, there was an inconsistent conceptualization of primary prevention across the studies, with most studies not defining it at all, and no other consistent definition across multiple studies (see Appendix 2). Indeed, some studies labeled one-off educational sessions as primary prevention. While education is necessary, a one-off training or lesson lacks the comprehensive, sustained engagement necessary for effective upstream intervention. These findings highlight the need for more diverse, culturally responsive, methodologically rigorous, and theoretically consistent understanding of primary prevention for approaches to sexual violence prevention research in university settings.
Strengths and Limitations
The papers included in this scoping review examine or evaluate a single program that tries to prevent sexual violence in a university setting (See Table 9 for an overview of implications for practice, policy, and research). While we and others advocate for a whole-of-university approach (Beres et al., 2019; Lichty et al., 2008; Our Watch, 2021; Universities Australia, 2023), programs that undertake that approach may possibly be too large or wide-ranging to fit in a singular article, and so even if a whole-of-university approach was considered in program design or implementation in coordination with other programs, it may have been missed in this review that focused on only individual papers and not the wider context of the university’s work in sexual violence prevention. Therefore, some whole-of-university programs may not have been included. Further, the study focused on peer-reviewed publications, meaning some evaluated interventions only published in gray literature may have been excluded. The people working in prevention are often under-resourced, and student activism is often grassroots with limited institutional buy-in. Therefore, more resourcing is needed for grassroots and non-academic approaches to primary prevention, which are rarely represented in the academic literature. The study was focused on high-income countries. While there are many varied cultural differences in these countries, the resources allocated to universities have some comparability. Therefore, to avoid making unfair assessments for countries with fewer resources, studies in low-and-middle-income countries are not included in the current paper, though a recent scoping review has addressed this gap (Baeza Robba et al., 2026). We have focused on sexual violence, as this is often neglected in wider studies on gender-based violence, and we call for future studies on other forms of gender-based violence to follow our method to assess how universities are (or are not) following a whole-of-university approach. Lastly, due to language limitations, the study only included papers written in English. The strengths of this study lie in the comprehensive search strategy and the mapping of the studies against the Our Watch whole-of-university framework, which highlights key gaps in interventions and evidence.
Implications for Practice, Policy and Research.
Conclusion
Primary prevention programs at universities are still relatively new. To date, they are focused on teaching and learning, and there are limited whole-of-university approaches to build university-wide capability and safe and respectful cultures. Our Watch offers a whole-of-university framework that universities could use to address sexual violence on campuses. This would take a concerted effort, but it is achievable with sufficient funding and support. There is an urgent need for more longitudinal program evaluations that provide rigorous research on what works in sexual violence prevention. Future research must consider how we define prevention and what we mean by primary prevention programs. While research on sexual violence is often sidelined, future research could look at multiple forms of violence and how institutions are responding (or not). Universities have made some steps toward sexual violence primary prevention, but they are currently insufficient and lacking in rigor. Preventing sexual violence must be a priority at universities.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 – Supplemental material for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review by Jessica Ison, Fiona Giles, Samantha Marshall, Felicity Young and Leesa Hooker in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 – Supplemental material for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review by Jessica Ison, Fiona Giles, Samantha Marshall, Felicity Young and Leesa Hooker in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-3-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 – Supplemental material for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-tva-10.1177_15248380261451846 for Mapping Evaluated University Primary Prevention Interventions Against a Whole-of-University Framework: A Scoping Review by Jessica Ison, Fiona Giles, Samantha Marshall, Felicity Young and Leesa Hooker in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse
Footnotes
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was partly funded by internal funding from La Trobe University
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Supplemental Material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Author Biographies
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
