Sexual coercion and harassment of students with disabilities in tertiary institutions: A systematic review

Abstract

Introduction

This study reviews existing scientific publications on sexual harassment and coercion of students with disabilities in tertiary institutions, a significant global public health and human rights concern.

Methods

The review was guided by the PRISMA guidelines whilst the protocol was registered with PROSPERO. Six main databases were searched in addition to supplementary search from other sources. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), Dixon-Woods et al. tool and the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tools were used to assess the quality of the studies. Two authors extracted the data, with the third author checking for bias risks. The studies were narratively synthesised where key variables such as the prevalence of sexual harassment and coercion were critically analysed.

Results

Out of the 4,968 articles retrieved, 5 were included in the review. The findings revealed that students with disabilities have an increased propensity for sexual coercion/harassment relative to those with no disabilities. The prevalence of sexual harassment/coercion ranged from 10.49% (out of 5,319 students) to 85% (51 out of 60 students) across the studies, with perpetrators mainly being fellow students and faculty/administrative staff. Lack of understanding and awareness of existing institutional policies and support systems regarding sexual harassment/coercion were key contributing factors.

Conclusion

Since sexual harassment perpetuates inequality and undermines progress towards Sustainable Development Goals 5 (Gender Equality), 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions), students with disabilities should be involved in policy development to combat sexual misconduct in tertiary institutions.

Keywords

disability higher education systematic review sexual harassment students

Highlights

1. What do we already know about this topic?

Studies in developed countries have over the years recognised and reported sexual harassment/coercion of students with the victims’ been harassment/coercion before age 17.

2. How does your research contribute to the field?

3. What are your research’s implications towards theory, practice, or policy?

Because sexual harassment perpetuates inequality and undermines progress towards Sustainable Development Goals 5, 8, and 16, students with disabilities should be involved in policy development to combat sexual misconduct in tertiary institutions.

Introduction

Several reports from international organisations reveal that approximately 736 million women aged 15 years and older have been subjected to physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence, non-partner sexual violence, or both at least once in their lifetime (World Health Organization, 2021; UN Women, 2019). Evidence from higher education settings indicates similarly alarming patterns. A systematic review and meta-analysis with 104 articles revealed 17% pooled prevalence of sexual violence among higher education institution students (Steele et al., 2021). Notably, there are significant regional variations to this phenomenon. For instance, data from the Global Based School Survey (GBSS) shows that the extent of sexual violence in five African countries ranged from 27–50% (Brown et al., 2009). In the case of Europe, large surveys have indicated that approximately one in three students and staff in academia experience sexual harassment within their institution, and between 57% and 68% of female students report some form of verbal or physical sexual harassment, including severe sexual assault, during their studies (UniSAFE Consortium 2022; Zounlome et al., 2023).¹

The Equality Act defines sexual harassment as “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature which has the purpose or effect of violating someone’s dignity or creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them”.² The sexual harassment continuum ranges from coercion, rape, sexual abuse and bullying to sexist jargon.³ Sexual coercion, on the other hand, refers to an uninvited sexual act that transpires when one is tricked, pressured, forced or threatened in a non-physical manner.⁴

The prevalence of sexual harassment and coercion is higher in women with disabilities, which exposes them to several health challenges. The health challenges include susceptibility to Human Immuno-deficiency Virus/Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (HIV/AIDS) and other sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, anxiety disorders, and depression.^5,6 Victims of these acts experience numerous health challenges that can persist over time. Such ordeal catalyses and multiplies the adverse effects on them.^7,8

Demands by male lecturers/tutors for sex from female students for the acquisition of good grades have long been established.⁹ A significant number of scientific reviews have focused on sexual harassment and coercion among university and college students (hereafter referred to as tertiary education students), highlighting the prevalence, research methodology, prevention, and other issues related to perpetrators and their unique characteristics.^10–14 Most of the reviews are delimited to studies on the prevalence of the general population or those within the university/college environment only.^10,15,16

Male students, including those with disabilities, also experience substantial levels of sexual violence, although their victimisation is often overlooked. For instance, on U.S. campuses, about 13% of all students report rape or sexual assault, with estimates of around 7% of male undergraduates and 2–3% of male graduate students experiencing such violence involving force or incapacitation (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN, 2025). Studies of male undergraduates in Nigeria similarly report that around 16% have experienced sexual harassment and 10% sexual assault, and over 13% report some form of child sexual abuse, with childhood victimisation strongly associated with revictimisation in adulthood (Ngini, Odeyemi et al. 2025). Across university settings, males report unwanted sexual touching, coercion and harassment from peers and adults, but are less likely than females to disclose or seek help, partly due to masculine norms and stigma (Thomas & Kopel, 2023). These available studies have not prioritised marginalised students such as those with disabilities, hence the need to prioritise students with disabilities.

In the present study, researchers strived to offset the knowledge gap in existing reviews by considering sexual harassment and coercion among tertiary education students with disabilities. Taking a global perspective, we systematically searched and synthesised all available peer-review evidence on sexual harassment and coercion among tertiary education students with disabilities. In this systematic review, we adopted a systematic approach to identify, appraise, and synthesise empirical studies on sexual harassment and coercion of ‘students with disabilities’ within higher education institutions worldwide.¹⁷ The outcome of this study is anticipated to guide governments and heads of tertiary education institutions on critical factors worth considering in the quest to alleviate all forms of sexual harassment and coercion to foster more inclusive tertiary academic environments. Since most victims are females,^18,19 the study goes a long way to enhance efforts geared towards the realisation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) three and five.²⁰

Review question

The study was guided by the following research question: “What is the prevalence and associated factors of sexual coercion and harassment among students with disabilities in tertiary institutions?”

Methods and materials

This review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA).²¹ We initiated this review with a protocol that is duly registered with PROSPERO (ID CRD42023485215).

Conceptual definitions

Disability: Physical, intellectual or psychological impairment that affects a person’s ability to engage in certain activities or participate fully, varying in their nature and severity. Some common types of disabilities include mobility impairments, visual or hearing impairments.

Sexual harassment: Any unsolicited sexual advances, desires for sexual favours, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature. Sexual harassment continuum ranges from coercion, rape, sexual abuse, and bullying, to sexist jargon.

Sexual coercion: Act of using force, threats, pressure or manipulation to induce someone to engage in sexual activities against their will or without their full and voluntary consent.

Population

The population of interest are persons with disabilities, e. g. Deaf or hard of hearing (D/HH), visually impaired, physical disabilities.

Inclusion criteria

We included original articles that reported any form of sexual coercion/harassment among students with disabilities in tertiary institutions (i.e. universities or colleges). Considering that the English Language is the working language of all the authors, we included only articles written in English. No year restrictions were applied. In addition, we did not limit the study to any geographical region, and studies from any part of the world were considered.

Search strategy

We employed the search process described by other researchers,¹⁸ with the data selection process shown in Figure 1. Experienced researchers used Web of Science (Core Collection), Scopus, PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases for the main search process. These six primary databases were selected to ensure comprehensive coverage of health, social science, and education research on sexual coercion and harassment in tertiary settings, as they index the major peer-reviewed journals relevant to our topic and population. Additional sources were searched to reduce publication and database bias. Thus, an additional search was conducted as a supplement, using Bibliotek. dk (Denmark), Diva, Libris and SwePub (Sweden), Education Research Complete (ERC), Gender studies database, Helka and MELINDA (Finland), Google Scholar, and Sociological abstracts. The string words for the search were “(‘sexual harass*' OR (harass* AND sex*) OR sex* offense*) OR (intimate partner violence) OR (sexual coerc*) OR (rape))) AND (student*) AND (disabled* OR (blind) OR (deaf) OR (dumb) OR (lame) OR (intellectual disability) AND (universit* OR college* OR academ* OR ‘higher education’) NOT (child* OR school*)” (see appendix).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow diagram of the systematic review process; Page et al. 2020.

Data extraction

Data were extracted by two of the authors and a third author carefully checked the extracted data, after deduplication. The duplicates were removed by one of the authors. Manual duplicate removal was chosen to ensure accurate identification of duplicates with minor bibliographic inconsistencies that automated tools may overlook. Data extraction was done by one reviewer, which was checked by the other authors. Two authors evaluated the eligibility of all identified scientific publications and one arbitrated where there were discrepancies. Thus, discrepancies at the title, abstract, and full-text screening stages were independently reviewed by the third author, who discussed each case with the initial reviewers until consensus was reached. Inter-rater agreement for study inclusion during title/abstract screening was 0.78 (Cohen’s kappa), indicating substantial agreement beyond chance. We analysed this large set of literature (N = 4,968) using systematic and rigorous criteria after registering the 4,968 publications in Rayyan QCR1.²² We included keywords, abstract, title, authors, etc criteria. The researchers perused the identified items for inclusion using these criteria as indicated in Figure 1: (i) universities and colleges (tertiary institutions) as a main geographical scope of interest, (ii) sexual harassment of students with a disability as a target population, and (iii) Peer-reviewed empirical articles published in journals from 1966-2023. After resolving all discrepancies, a total of 344 publications were obtained.

In Rayyan, the researchers used selective search processes, clustered the individual publications based on search terms identified in keywords, abstracts, and titles, and focused on the consequences of sexual harassment of students suffering from one disability or another, method, prevalence, prevention, victims, perpetrators, and theory. Such key concepts, themes and phrases served as preliminary ‘umbrellas’ followed by a search for other sub-concepts (i.e., prev*, complaint, polic*, support, educ*, train*, tertiary, secondary, primary, case, etc. Remain sub-concepts for the preliminary concept, prevention in the list of the 344 publications).

Specific inclusion and sub-concepts within the list of the 344 publications were further analysed resulting in the remaining 17 articles of publication. Finally, two experienced reviewers rigorously worked on the full texts of the remaining 17 publications, and consulted a third reviewer for arbitration where there were discrepancies resulting in 5 final items for detailed analysis (see Figure 1).

Quality assessment

Cross-sectional studies, qualitative studies,²³ and mixed methods studies,⁷ were assessed with different tools by four authors. Thus, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for the cross-sectional studies,²⁴ whilst the tool by Dixon-Woods et al.²³ and the Quality Assessment for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool,²⁵ were used for the qualitative and mixed-methods studies respectively. Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

Risk of Bias Assessment

The Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-Randomized Studies (RoBANS) was employed to assess the quality of the remaining five (5) studies. For each study, we graded the risk of bias as either high, medium or low or unclear depending on the features of the article publication. Each study was critically analysed based on the six domains (measurement of exposure, confounding variable, selection of participants, blinding of outcome assessments, selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data) indicated in the table based on observation and evaluation (see Table 1). The following features or characteristics were recorded: name of the lead-author, the year the article was published, the country where the research was conducted, the study design (e.g. cross-sectional studies, sequential explanatory-mixed method, qualitative); study participants, disability with sexual violence complications, quality assessment of the article; details of exposure measures, the odds that students with disabilities versus those without disability will experience sexual harassment/coercion.

Table 1.

Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS).

#	Domain	Details	Risk of bias
1	Selection of participants	Selection bias caused by the inadequate selection of participants	Low
			High
			unclear/medium
2	Confounding variables	Selection bias caused by the inadequate confirmation and consideration of confounding variable	Low
			High
			unclear/medium
3	Measurement of exposure	Performance bias caused by the inadequate measurement of exposure	Low
			High
			unclear/medium
4	Blinding of outcome assessments	Detection bias caused by the inadequate blinding of outcome assessments	Low
			High
			unclear/medium
5	Incomplete outcome data	Attrition bias caused by the inadequate handling of incomplete outcome data	Low
			High
			unclear/medium
6	Selective outcome reporting	Reporting bias caused by the selective reporting of outcomes	Low
			High
			unclear/medium

JP, Sally G, (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: https://www.cochrane-handbook.

Synthesis

The studies were narratively synthesised where key variables such as the prevalence of sexual harassment and coercion were critically analysed. The synthesis highlighted prevalence, characteristics of perpetrators and drivers of the sexual harassment and coercion in tertiary institutions.

Results

The Scientific publications on sexual harassment of students with disabilities in universities or colleges summarised the following: (a) Characteristics of research design of the included studies, (b) prevalence of sexual harassment of students with disability in universities or colleges, (c) characteristics of perpetrators (including their relationship with the victim(s), (d) enablers of the act/susceptibility and knowledge about available support services. It is worth mentioning that none of the studies reported on the additional issues this review sought to unearth, including the effect of sexual coercion/harassment on academic performance and social life on campus.

Characteristics of research design of the included studies

Among the five articles for the final synthesis, two studies were cross-sectional; two were qualitative and one was a sequential explanatory-mixed method research, and one was a qualitative study. All studies touched on sexual harassment/coercion of students with disabilities in higher education. Out of the 5 studies, 3 (60%) were conducted in the United States of America (USA), and one study each in South Africa and Ghana showed reported cases or instances of such phenomenon. Three out of five studies focused on hearing disabilities or deafness as the primary type of disability investigated.

Figure 1 shows the flow scheme of the identified literature search under the systematic review. The literature search permitted to find 4,968 studies. After duplicates were removed, the research team reviewed 4,082 manuscript titles and abstracts. Of the five studies that were included, two had moderate risk of bias,^26,27 one showed high risk of bias,²⁸ one was of fair quality,²⁹ one was of good quality.³⁰

Prevalence

All three studies that reported sexual harassment/coercion prevalence were conducted in the United States.^26,29,30 The prevalence ranged from 10.49% (out of 5,319)³⁰ to 85% (51 out of 60).²⁹ In the study by Findley et al.,²⁶ 62% of the victims had the experience before age 17 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Summary of included studies.

First author, year, countries^Ref	Objective	Study design	Study population	Disability with sexual violence	Quality assessment
Findley et al.,²⁶ USA	To assess the rates of abuse among university students with disabilities.	Cross-sectional study	101 students of students with disabilities	•In the study, 22% of the participants reported experiencing various forms of abuse, while nearly 62% (n= 63) had encountered physical or sexual abuse before reaching the age of 17.	Moderate risk of bias
Findley et al.,²⁶ USA		Cross-sectional study	101 students of students with disabilities	•Close to 40% of the participants had limited or no knowledge regarding the services provided to them as abuse victims.	Moderate risk of bias
Richter et al.,²⁹ USA	To investigate barriers and facilitators to help-seeking on campus among students with disabilities, with sexual violence histories to generate ideas or access points for service enhancement provision and accessibility.	Qualitative (Semi-Structured Interview)	60 young adults and adolescents	•The study found that out of a sample of 60 individuals with disabilities, 51 had experienced sexual violence (SV) and were primarily focused on seeking assistance and services.	Fair quality
				•The study indicates that individuals with disabilities who either experienced or anticipated adverse reactions, such as judgment, were less inclined to utilise services and reported lower levels of satisfaction.
				•On the other hand, providing advocacy and support to connect students with disabilities or sexual violence services was linked to positive experiences and improved accessibility.
Campe,³⁰ USA	To explore the relationship between female college campus sexual assault victimisation and disability status.	Cross-sectional study	22,828 female college students	•23.3% (n=5,319) of the sample had disabilities	Good quality
				•10.49 experienced any form of sexual harassment (sexual assault of any kind) including:
				-completed sexual assault
				-attempted sexual assault
				-relationship with sexual assault
				•Female students with disabilities are over 100% more likely to experience completed assaults, attempted assaults, and relationship-related assaults relative to their counterparts without disabilities.
				•The study indicates that disability status leads to a notably higher likelihood of experiencing sexual assault when compared to other well-known risk factors like binge drinking, drug use, or affiliation with Greek organisations.
				•More specifically, female students with disabilities face a significantly higher risk of any form of sexual assault in comparison to their peers without disabilities.
				•This risk is further amplified when examining specific categories of assault, as female students with disabilities are over 100% more likely to experience completed assaults, attempted assaults, and relationship-related assaults in comparison to their counterparts without disabilities.
Gbagbo et al.,²⁷ Ghana	To investigate the experiences of students with disabilities regarding sexual harassment and coercion on campus.	Sequential explanatory-mixed method	119 students with various disabilities	•The study discloses that students with disability frequently encountered situations involving attempted or forced kissing, unwarranted sexual scrutiny, engaging in uncomfortable sexual discussions, and sexually suggestive physical contact.	Moderate risk of bias
				•The primary individuals responsible for these actions were those without physical disabilities (24.4%), fellow students with disabilities (14.3%), and faculty or administrative staff (10.9%).
				•The study shows that students with disabilities were not informed about the university’s policy on sexual coercion/harassment, and they were not engaged in its development or distribution.

Source: Authors’ Construct.

Perpetrators of sexual coercion or harassment

Two of the studies reported on the perpetrators of sexual harassment and coercion, from Ghana²⁷ and South Africa.³¹ The Ghana-based mixed-methods study reported that persons without disabilities (24.4%), fellow students with disabilities (14.3%), and faculty or administrative staff (10.9%) were the perpetrators. In the South African qualitative study, four out of the seven victims reported that the perpetrators were males within the premises of their schools; however, their statuses (e. g. student/staff) were undisclosed³¹ (see Table 1).

Susceptibility to sexual coercion or harassment

Students with intellectual disabilities demonstrated increased susceptibility to on-campus sexual violence, often manifesting through intimidation, threats, and unwanted physical contact.³⁰ This heightened vulnerability can be attributed to a combination of cognitive limitations, reduced ability to recognize risky situations, and dependence on others for academic or social support, which may create opportunities for exploitation.

This finding aligns with existing literature. For instance, 31 found that learners with intellectual disabilities are particularly vulnerable to sexual abuse due to challenges in understanding social boundaries and reporting abuse. Similarly, a study from the Kenya reported that females with disabilities experience significantly higher rates of sexual assault over twice as likely to encounter completed or attempted assaults compared to their non-disabled peers.³⁰ Notably, the study emphasized that disability status itself is a stronger predictor of sexual victimization than commonly cited risk factors such as substance use.

The convergence of these findings suggests that vulnerability among students with intellectual disabilities is not merely situational but structurally embedded within social and institutional contexts that inadequately safeguard them. In the university setting, this may be exacerbated by limited tailored support systems, stigma, and insufficient awareness among staff and peers. Therefore, susceptibility to sexual coercion should be understood not only as an individual-level risk but also as a reflection of systemic gaps in protection and inclusive campus safety mechanisms.

Knowledge about available support services in case of sexual coercion or harassment

Two studies reported the respondents’ knowledge of available support systems, policies, and systems.^26,27 The study reported that nearly four out of ten participants had limited or no knowledge about the services provided to abuse victims.²⁶ Relatedly, the study from Ghana revealed that students with disabilities had little knowledge about the university’s policy on sexual coercion/harassment, and they were not engaged in its development or distribution.²⁷

Discussion

This study examined peer-reviewed research evidence on sexual harassment and coercion among tertiary education students with disabilities. Exposure to sexual harassment/coercion of students with disabilities was common among female students, which is inconsistent with the studies existing evidence.^29,30,32 In tandem with our findings, available evidence reveals that one in five females who entered tertiary institutions suffers attempted or completed sexual harassment.^10,15 Sexual harassment and the experience of students with disabilities remain one of the evolving phenomena that require more investigations to improve understanding across the sociocultural milieu.³³

In-depth analysis of the study’s results confirmed that students with disabilities in tertiary institutions face a high rate of sexual coercion and harassment, with studies showing that up to 68.6% are affected.^5,6,27 Common incidents involve forced kissing, unwelcome touching, and persistent advances, primarily perpetrated by able-bodied individuals, fellow disabled students, and university staff.^5,6,27 Contributing factors include poverty, social isolation, and lack of awareness regarding harassment policies, leading to serious psychological and physical health issues for victims.²⁷ Proposed research initiatives, such as those seeking funding by the University of Education, Winneba, aim to tackle these problems, underscoring the urgent need for improved protective policies and programs in Ghanaian tertiary institutions.²⁷

We noted that perpetrators of sexual harassment against students with disabilities are usually not aliens to the victims.²⁷ This underscores the need for heads of tertiary institutions to sensitise students with disabilities to be extra vigilant about the people they keep as friends, where they meet them; whether in secluded locations or otherwise, as well as the need to have clear boundaries for the people they interact with on campus. For instance, if both persons with and without disability are conscious of having a healthy platonic relationship, there might be relatively lesser propensity for sexual harassment or coercion relative to forming “friendships with benefits”.³⁴

On preventive measures against sexual harassment of students with disabilities in tertiary educational institutions, workable policy formulation, effective case management and strong support systems and structures including proactive leadership and programmes by the leadership of tertiary institutions focusing on bystanders will be worthwhile.¹⁸

Given the above findings and discussions, future research can delve deeper into the effects of extant preventive measures and research works, with a significant focus on incentives and unique behaviours of perpetrators to improve such measures.^15,34 Furthermore, action research about how the experiences and views of sexual harassment victims can be incorporated into existing policies can strengthen the collective resolve to protect the sexual rights of students with disabilities. In connection with such action research, an international study on this phenomenon with the development of intercultural research is recommended.^33,35 Additionally, longitudinal study that tracks the short to long-term effects of sexual harassment and coercion on students with disabilities and institutional responses can offer in-depth knowledge on the subject. With adequate knowledge of the situation and institutional practices on sexual harassment of students with disabilities, pragmatic interventions that aim to empower students and institutions to prevent all forms of sexual abuse can extend existing efforts meaningfully.³⁶

Students with disabilities, particularly those with intellectual disabilities, face a markedly elevated risk of on-campus sexual violence, often taking the form of intimidation, threats, and unwanted physical contact, underscoring their heightened vulnerability in tertiary settings. Evidence from the USA further indicates that female students with disabilities experience substantially higher rates of completed, attempted, and relationship-related sexual assaults than their non-disabled peers, with disability status conferring greater odds of sexual assault than other widely cited risk factors such as binge drinking or drug use.

Limited awareness of available support services and policies among students with disabilities emerged as a critical concern in the included studies. Two studies showed that almost four in ten participants had little or no knowledge of services for abuse victims, indicating a substantial information and implementation gap within tertiary institutions. In the Ghanaian study, students with disabilities were largely unaware of the university’s policy on sexual coercion and harassment and were not involved in its development or dissemination, highlighting exclusion from key safeguarding processes and potential barriers to help-seeking.

With the above notwithstanding, we contend that stronger institutional regulations, increased awareness, and better support systems are all necessary to combat sexual harassment among students with disabilities in tertiary institutions. However, intentionally establishing specialised anti-harassment policies, putting in place functional educational training initiatives for all parties involved, setting up easily accessible reporting routes for all categories of persons with disabilities, and offering victims extensive support services are additional important tactics that could be explored to address this phenomenon. Involving this category of students in the co-creation of policies and carrying out focused research to comprehend their particular requirements are other crucial actions to be considered by the various institutional leaderships. Students with hearing problems may require special attention since they have unique communication difficulties to express themselves and demand their sexual rights when violated on campus.

Strengths and limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to synthesise empirical evidence on sexual coercion and harassment among tertiary education students with disabilities, with a global focus. Thus, existing reviews on sexual coercion and harassment in higher education have largely focused on general student populations, with minimal disaggregated analysis for students with disabilities and limited attention to prevalence, associated factors, and policy responses specific to this group. Second, we employed a rigorous search strategy, to ensure the identification of all relevant studies and answer our overarching research question. However, we included only studies that are published in English only. Hence it is possible that eligible articles in any other languages were missed. Secondly, only five studies met the inclusion criteria, limiting the breadth of evidence and the capacity for generalization. The included studies also differed notably in design, setting, and methodological quality, which may have introduced heterogeneity and constrained the comparability of findings. These factors should be considered when interpreting the findings and assessing their applicability to broader contexts.

Conclusions

Our systematic review highlights the prevalence of sexual harassment and coercion, emphasizing critical measures for addressing these issues in tertiary institutions. It advocates involving students with disabilities in policy development and educating them on preventive practices to combat sexual malpractices in higher education. The findings also underscore the need for comprehensive interventions that address the underlying culture of sexual violence affecting students with disabilities in tertiary education settings. Beyond individual-level support, institutional responses should focus on transforming social norms, strengthening policy enforcement, and promoting inclusive and accessible reporting mechanisms. Targeted awareness programmes, staff training, and peer-led initiatives are essential to challenge ableist and gendered power dynamics that perpetuate vulnerability.

Additionally, more research in this area to refine conceptual framing of sexual coercion and harassment and the broader issue of sexual violence is urgently needed to address existing policy gaps. Such research can focus on current theoretical and practical perspectives on promoting responsible sexual behaviours and preventing sexual coercion and harassment. Besides, future research could explore the sex dynamics of experiences of sexual coercion and harassment among students with disabilities.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the finder and all those who in diverse ways facilitated the successful completion of this review.

ORCID iD

Fred Yao Gbagbo

Author Contributions

EKA and FYG conceptualised the study and contributed to revision drafts. PAA, GNYR and FQ reviewed several drafts, and contributed important intellectual content, ROA developed the protocol, and conducted the literature search. All authors reviewed and approved the final version for submission.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by Lingnan University. Funding Reference: GSFRG/22/12.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Appendix

References

UN Women . Progress of the World’s Women 2019–2020, 2019.

UK Public General Acts . Equality Act 2010; 2010. Retrieved from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/26/enacted on 2nd December, 2023.

Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation (SWG GRI) . Sexual Harassment and Higher Education: National Policies and Measures in EU Member States. ERAC Standing Working Group on Gender in Research and Innovation, 2020.

Office of Women’s Health . Sexual Coercion; 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.womenshealth.gov/relationships-and-safety/other-types/sexual-coercion on 2nd December 2023.

Krnjacki

Emerson

Llewellyn

, et al. Prevalence and risk of violence against people with and without disabilities: Findings from an Australian population‐based study. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health 2016; 40(1): 16–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12498

Stermac

Cripps

Badali

, et al. Sexual Coercion Experiences among Canadian University Students with Disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 2018; 31(4): 321–333.

WHO. Global and Regional Estimates of Violence Against Women . Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Non-Partner Sexual Violence. : World Health Organization, 2013.

World Economic Forum . The Global Gender Gap Report 2017, 2017.

Morley

. Sex, grades and power in higher education in Ghana and Tanzania. Cambridge Journal of Education 2011; 41(1): 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305764x.2010.549453

10.

Fedina

Holmes

Backes

. Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, violence, & abuse 2018; 19(1): 76–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838016631129

11.

Fnais

Soobiah

Chen

, et al. Harassment and discrimination in medical training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Academic Medicine 2014; 89(5): 817–827. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000200

12.

Graham

Mennicke

Rizo

, et al. Interpersonal violence prevention and response on college and university campuses: Opportunities for faculty leadership. Journal of Family Violence 2019; 34: 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9968-1

13.

Klein

Brewer

Mennicke

, et al. Centering minoritized students in campus interpersonal violence research. Journal of Family Violence 2021; 36: 911–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00223-8

14.

McClelland

Horne

Dearnley

, et al. Experiences and outcomes among undergraduate health professional higher education students with protected characteristics: disability, gender, and ethnicity. Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture 2015; 6(1): 38–64. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpoc.21168

15.

Voth

SRJ

. Campus based sexual assault and dating violence: A review of study contexts and participants. Affilia 2017; 32(1): 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886109916644644

16.

Steele

Martin

Sciarra

, et al. The prevalence of sexual assault among higher education students: A systematic review with meta-analyses. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2024; 25(3): 1885–1898. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231196119

17.

Latcheva

. Sexual Harassment in the European Union: A Pervasive but Still Hidden Form of Gender-Based Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2017; 32(12): 1821–1852. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517698948

18.

Bondestam

Lundqvist

. Sexual harassment in higher education–a systematic review. European Journal of Higher Education 2020; 10(4): 397–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2020.1729833

19.

Molstad

Weinhardt

Jones

. Sexual assault as a contributor to academic outcomes in university: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2023; 24(1): 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211030247

20.

United Nations . Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for Sustainable Development United Nations. A/RES/70/1, 2015.

21.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. bmj 2021; 372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

22.

Ouzzani

Hammady

Fedorowicz

, et al. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic reviews 2016; 5: 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4

23.

Dixon-Woods

Shaw

Agarwal

, et al. The problem of appraising qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety 2004; 13(3): 223–225. https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.13.3.223

24.

Palmeri

Colamesta

La Torre

. Evaluation of methodological quality of studies. Senses and Sciences 2016; 3(3).

25.

Harrison

Jones

Gardner

, et al. Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed-or multi-method studies. BMC health services research 2021; 21: 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y

26.

Findley

Plummer

McMahon

. Exploring the experiences of abuse of college students with disabilities. Journal of interpersonal violence 2016; 31(17): 2801–2823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515581906

27.

Gbagbo

Rockson

Quansah

, et al. Sexual coercion and harassment of students with disabilities in a Public University in Ghana. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy 2023; 49(7): 798–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2023.2211577

28.

Campe

. College campus sexual assault and female students with disabilities. Journal of interpersonal violence 2021; 36(15-16): NP7971–NP7996. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519840405

29.

Yee

Alagappar

Ngeow

. Differences in the perception of sexual harassment by gender and ethnicity among selected Malaysian undergraduates. Gender, technology and development 2015; 19(2): 204–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0971852415578042

30.

Salome

Mbugua

Ong’eta

. Gender and disability: Voices of female students with disabilities on gender based violence in higher education, Kenya. International Journal of Education and Research 2013; 1(4): 1–2.

31.

Richter

Anderson

Miller

, et al. Campus service use among students with disabilities who have experienced sexual violence: a conceptual model. Qualitative health research 2021; 31(7): 1222–1233. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732321998054

32.

Wood

Hoefer

Kammer-Kerwick

, et al. Sexual harassment at institutions of higher education: Prevalence, risk, and extent. Journal of interpersonal violence 2021; 36(9-10): 4520–4544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518791228

33.

McDonald

. Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 2012; 14(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x

34.

Vladutiu

Martin

Macy

. College-or university-based sexual assault prevention programs: A review of program outcomes, characteristics, and recommendations. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 2011; 12(2): 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838010390708

35.

Higgins

. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.0. Cochrane, 2019. (updated July 2019).

36.

Henning

Zhou

Adams

, et al. Workplace harassment among staff in higher education: a systematic review. Asia Pacific Education Review 2017; 18: 521–539.