Online sexual exploitation and image-based abuse

Overview & Definition

Picture a fifteen-year-old brought to your emergency department at midnight after taking an overdose. The overdose is the presenting complaint, but the engine behind it is a string of messages on her phone: a man she met on a gaming platform convinced her to send an image, then threatened to send it to her school unless she paid. Your job is to see past the paracetamol level to the technology-facilitated sexual abuse driving it. [14]

Online sexual exploitation is the umbrella term for child sexual abuse that is enabled, amplified or sustained by digital technology. Henry and Powell defined the broader field of technology-facilitated sexual violence as any sexual violence perpetrated in part or wholly through communication technologies, and it spans harassment, grooming, coercion, image-based abuse and threats. [6]

The clinical subtypes that matter at the bedside are these. Online grooming is the process by which an offender builds trust and emotional connection with a child online to manipulate them into sexual activity or sexual content. Sextortion is the coercion of a young person — using a sexual image or information as leverage — to produce more content, meet in person, or pay money. Image-based abuse (often called non-consensual intimate image sharing, or colloquially "revenge porn") is the sharing, or threat of sharing, of a sexual image without the subject's consent. [6] [7]

Self-generated sexual content (sexting) ranges from developmentally normative consensual exchange between peers to coerced or illegal material; the same image can shift from consensual to abusive the moment it is shared beyond the intended recipient. Child sexual abuse material is the recorded depiction of a child being sexually abused, now overwhelmingly produced and distributed online. Kloess and colleagues' review established the prevalence, process and offender characteristics that frame all of these. [1]

A child in this domain is anyone under the age of majority in your jurisdiction, and the clinical approach is identical whether the young person is nine or seventeen: recognise, assess, safeguard, report, and support. The age changes the legal framework (consent, criminal responsibility, image-abuse statutes) but not your duty to protect. [7]

[1] [6]

Classification

Sort what is in front of you by the offender's mechanism and the young person's role, because the label changes the safety plan, the reporting pathway and the forensic steps. Kloess and colleagues' review framed online child sexual exploitation by offender behaviour and victim process, and that frame still organises the bedside decision. [1]

Online grooming is offender-driven: a adult (sometimes an older peer) makes contact, builds rapport, isolates the child from their support network, sexualises the conversation, and gradually extracts content or a meeting. Ringenberg and colleagues' scoping review mapped how grooming strategies shifted after the internet — faster contact, wider reach, and the ability to maintain many simultaneous victims. [9]

Sextortion is the coercive lever: once an offender holds an image, they threaten exposure to extract more images, sexual contact, or money. Financial sextortion — where the demand is for payment rather than more content — has surged and carries a high acute-suicide risk because the victim sees no exit. [4] [10]

Image-based abuse can be peer-perpetrated (a consensual image forwarded after a relationship ends) or offender-perpetrated (a hacked, coerced or stolen image distributed to humiliate). Henry, Flynn and Powell situated it within technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence, emphasising that the harm is the non-consensual distribution, not the original image. [12]

Self-generated content (sexting) is the one subtype that can be consensual and developmentally common, and Madigan and colleagues' meta-analysis quantified how widespread it is among youth. The clinical task is to distinguish consensual peer sexting from coerced, adult-involved, or redistributed material — the latter three are abuse. [2]

Child sexual abuse material and online solicitation represent the most severe end, where a child is being recorded being abused, or is being actively solicited for a meeting. Gottfried and colleagues framed these for the clinician as overlapping presentations that demand an immediate safeguarding response. [7]

[1] [7]

Epidemiology & Risk Factors

Online sexual exploitation is common, and most of it never reaches a clinician or an authority. Population-level meta-analyses now give defensible numbers for the subtypes, and they are large enough that a fellowship candidate should hold them. [3]

Madigan and colleagues' systematic review and meta-analysis found that roughly one in seven adolescents had sent a sext and about one in four had received one, with prevalence rising through adolescence and into emerging adulthood. Mori and colleagues' meta-analysis confirmed similarly high rates among emerging adults. These figures mean sexting is statistically common — which is exactly why the clinical question is not "did they sext" but "was it consensual, and has it been weaponised." [2] [15]

Patel and Roesch's meta-analysis and systematic review quantified technology-facilitated sexual violence more broadly, reporting substantial lifetime prevalence across harassment, image-based abuse and coercion. The headline is that these experiences are not rare edge cases; they are part of the adolescent landscape. [3]

Sextortion specifically affects a meaningful minority of youth. Patchin and Hinduja's national survey of United States adolescents found that a substantial proportion had experienced threats to expose an image, and that these threats were associated with psychological distress. O'Malley's work on financial sextortion documented acute and enduring mental-health harms, including the suicidal crises that bring young people to emergency departments. [4] [10]

Some young people are at markedly higher risk. Turner and colleagues found that sexual and gender minority youth experience technology-facilitated abuse at substantially higher rates than their peers. Children with disabilities, those in out-of-home care, those with prior offline victimisation, and those experiencing family conflict or social isolation are all over-represented — risk clusters, it does not occur at random. [11]

[2] [3] [11]

Pathophysiology

There is no enzyme for online exploitation, but there is a mechanism: how a child moves from an unsolicited contact to a trapped, silenced victim. Understanding the grooming and entrapment process is what lets you recognise it early and intervene before a single image becomes a lever. [5]

Kloess, Hamilton-Giachritsis and Beech analysed the offense processes of online sexual grooming and abuse, describing a sequence that begins with contact on a platform the child uses — a game, a social app, a livestream. The offender targets a child who is emotionally accessible: lonely, conflict at home, seeking validation, or exploring identity or sexuality online. [5]

The offender then builds trust and rapport — flattery, attention, shared interests, sometimes gifts or gaming currency. This phase is indistinguishable to the child from friendship, which is why grooming works and why disclosure is delayed. The relationship is then sexualised through escalating conversation, dares, or the introduction of sexual content, often normalised as something "everyone does." [9]

Once the child produces or shares an image, the dynamic inverts. Thomas and colleagues showed how offenders overcome a victim's resistance at this point — guilt, flattery, threatened loss of the relationship, or explicit blackmail. The image becomes collateral, and the offender can now demand more content, a meeting, or money under threat of exposure to family, school or peers. [13]

This is the sextortion spiral: each demand met produces more leverage, each refusal triggers a threat, and the young person perceives no exit that does not involve humiliation. The mechanism explains the clinical presentation — acute anxiety, secrecy, self-harm, and the terror of losing the device that is simultaneously the evidence and the lifeline. [4] [10]

Disclosure is shaped by this trap. Katz and colleagues explored how the architecture of internet child sexual abuse suppresses disclosure: shame, fear of consequences (losing the phone, police involvement, parental anger), and the belief that no adult can undo what is online all keep young people silent until crisis forces the encounter. [16]

[5] [16]

Clinical Presentation

From the doorway, a young person experiencing online sexual exploitation rarely presents with the exploitation as the complaint. They present with its downstream effects, and your job is to recognise the pattern behind the symptom. [14]

The most common presentation is a behavioural or mood change without a clear organic cause: withdrawal, new secrecy around devices, anxiety, sleep disruption, declining school performance, or school refusal. Hong and colleagues emphasised that these non-specific changes are often the first signal a clinician encounters, and they are easily misattributed to "normal teenage moodiness." [14]

A young person in acute crisis presents after self-harm, a suicidal gesture, or an overdose. In this setting the sextortion or image threat is the engine, and failing to ask about online life misses the cause entirely. O'Malley documented the acute suicidal ideation that accompanies financial sextortion specifically. [10]

A disclosure presents directly or obliquely — "someone online has been bothering me," or "I sent something I shouldn't have," or a parent who has found messages. Disclosures are often partial, tentative, or retracted, and they may be offered only if the young person trusts that you will not punish them or take their phone. [16]

A peer-driven image-abuse scenario presents as humiliation and social withdrawal after an image was forwarded around a school. The young person may be acutely distressed, fearful of returning to school, and convinced the situation is permanent. Henry, Flynn and Powell framed this as the harm flowing from the non-consensual distribution rather than the original image. [12]

A young person who is being actively solicited for a meeting may present with anxiety and unexplained gifts, money, or a new phone. The juxtaposition of new possessions with distress is a clinical finding, not a coincidence, and it should prompt direct enquiry about online contacts. [7]

[7] [14]

Differential Diagnosis

When a young person presents with adolescent distress, your task is to distinguish online sexual exploitation from the other causes of anxiety, withdrawal and self-harm — and to recognise that several can coexist. [14]

[10] [14]

Discriminate consensual from coerced sexting. Much adolescent sexting is consensual and developmentally common, as Madigan and colleagues showed. The clinical line is whether the content was freely produced and shared with a peer of similar age without coercion — or whether an adult, an age gap, threats, or redistribution turned it into abuse. The same image can be both, at different points in time. [2]

Separate online exploitation from offline sexual abuse — while recognising they overlap. Mitchell, Finkelhor and Wolak showed that internet-mediated abuse frequently co-occurs with family or acquaintance abuse, so discovering online exploitation should prompt enquiry about offline contact, and vice versa. One does not exclude the other. [8]

Distinguish the primary threat from secondary harms. A young person may present with depression, substance use, disordered eating, or school refusal, each of which can be the downstream effect of ongoing online exploitation. Treating the mental-health symptom without identifying the driver leaves the abuse continuing in the background. [6]

When the picture is genuinely ambiguous — distress and secrecy without a clear disclosure — the correct response is to ask directly and non-judgementally about online life, to hold the young person's trust, and to revisit the question over time. Silence on the first enquiry is not the end of the assessment. [16]

Clinical & Bedside Assessment

Open the encounter by establishing safety and trust, because the assessment depends on a disclosure the young person may have withheld from everyone else. Hong and colleagues framed the paediatric intervention as beginning with a non-judgemental, private conversation — interview the young person alone, as you would for any adolescent psychosocial assessment. [14]

Use a structured psychosocial framework adapted to include online life. A HEADSS assessment (Home, Education/Employment, Activities, Drugs, Sexuality, Suicide) is the standard scaffold, and the online dimension runs through each domain — who they talk to, which platforms, whether they have met online contacts, whether they have shared images, and whether anyone has threatened them. Gottfried and colleagues emphasised asking directly, because young people rarely volunteer this information. [7]

Assess acute safety before anything else. Screen for suicidal ideation, intent and plan, because sextortion and image-based abuse carry an elevated acute-suicide risk. If the young person is acutely suicidal, that is your first problem, and it determines whether they can leave the department. [4] [10]

Take a careful, non-leading account of what happened. Ask open questions, record the young person's exact words in quotation marks, and note dates, platforms, usernames and any financial demands. Do not conduct a forensic interview — that is for the specialist and the authority — but do capture what arises in the clinical encounter faithfully and contemporaneously, because it may be the only account before memories and messages change. [5]

Assess for coexisting contact abuse. If there is any suggestion of an offline meeting, physical contact, or pre-existing offline abuse, arrange a forensic examination by a clinician trained in paediatric sexual-assault examination, and consider sexually transmitted infection screening and emergency contraception where indicated. The online and offline domains are not mutually exclusive. [8]

Map the digital evidence without destroying it. Ask what devices and accounts are involved, whether the young person still has the messages or images, and whether they have already deleted anything. Advise them (and their parent, where appropriate) to preserve the device, take screenshots of threats, and record usernames and URLs — but do not attempt to retrieve or forward images yourself, because doing so can constitute further distribution. [5] [7]

Investigations

There is no blood test for online sexual exploitation, and the core "investigation" is the digital evidence itself, supported by targeted clinical workup for coexisting harm. These investigations sit in the medical record and feed the safeguarding response. [7]

Digital evidence capture is the central investigation, and it is unlike any other paediatric workup. The material — messages, images, usernames, URLs, payment demands, screenshots — is the forensic basis for both the child-protection report and the image-removal request. Your role is to ensure it is preserved and handed to the authority, not to collect or store it yourself. Advise the young person and family to keep the device, screenshot threats, and record identifiers, and to avoid deleting material until the authority advises. [5]

Mental-health assessment is mandatory, not optional. Screen for depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and suicidality using age-appropriate tools, because these presentations carry a real and acute suicide risk. A formal risk assessment determines the immediate disposition — home with a safety plan, or admission for the acutely suicidal young person. [10] [14]

Forensic and sexual-health examination is indicated when there is any possibility of contact abuse or an offline meeting. This is performed by a clinician trained in paediatric forensic examination, within the appropriate evidence-gathering window, with consent, and following chain-of-custody protocol. It serves both clinical (injury identification, STI screening, emergency contraception, prophylaxis) and evidentiary purposes. [8]

Screening for coexisting maltreatment belongs in the workup whenever online exploitation is identified. Mitchell, Finkelhor and Wolak demonstrated the co-occurrence of internet-mediated and family or acquaintance abuse, so a skeletal survey, neuroimaging, or broader child-protection workup may be warranted if the picture suggests additional harm — particularly in younger children. [8]

A child-protection and online-safety consultation functions as the integrating investigation. The specialist child-protection paediatrician and the designated online-safety authority bring expertise in image removal, offender identification, and the interface between clinical care and the criminal-justice system, and their early involvement strengthens the response. [7]

Management — Resuscitation

Treat the acute threat first, because the most dangerous consequence of online sexual exploitation is the suicidal young person and the perpetrator with current access. Resuscitation here means safety, not airway. [14]

Assess and secure the young person's immediate physical safety. If they are acutely suicidal, they cannot be discharged home without a safety plan and supervision — the active extortion demand is the proximate stressor, and removing access to the means of self-harm and ensuring a safe, supervised environment come first. [4] [10]

Assess the perpetrator's current access. If an offender is actively demanding a meeting, has the young person's location, or is threatening immediate exposure, the response is urgent and may involve police and the child-protection authority in real time, not at the next clinic visit. A live threat is a safeguarding emergency. [5]

Protect the evidence as part of resuscitation. The instinct of a frightened young person or parent is to delete everything and smash the phone; your job is to explain calmly that the device and the messages are the evidence that will let the authority remove the images and identify the offender. Preserve, do not destroy. [5] [7]

Allocate roles so that acute safety, evidence preservation and reporting run in parallel. One clinician leads the safety assessment, another supports the young person and family, and a third initiates the child-protection and online-safety notifications. The report should begin once the young person is safe — a delay of hours for clinical stabilisation is defensible; a delay of days is not. [7]

Reframe the encounter for the young person as one of belief and support, not blame. State plainly that what happened is not their fault, that they are not in trouble, and that adults will now act to stop the harm. How you handle the first clinical encounter shapes whether the young person engages with the safeguarding response or retreats into silence. [16]

Management — Definitive & Stepwise

Use a sequence you can defend out loud in a viva, anchored on the dual reporting pathway and the evidence-preservation principle. [5] [7]

[5] [7]

After the notifications, your clinical responsibility continues. Arrange mental-health follow-up, ensure a safety plan is in place before discharge, and coordinate with the child-protection authority, school, and any specialist services. The report opens a door; it does not end your involvement, because recovery is prolonged and the risk of re-victimisation is real. [14]

Handle the family conversation with honesty and without blame. Explain that the young person is the victim of a crime, that images will be pursued for removal, and that punishing or restricting the young person's autonomy in anger can worsen the harm. A family that responds with support rather than confiscation gives the young person the best chance of recovery. [6]

Manage the image itself through the proper channels. The designated online-safety authority (the eSafety Commissioner in Australia, the Revenge Porn Helpline in the UK, the NCMEC CyberTipline in the US, Cybertip.ca in Canada) exists to receive reports and pursue removal — this is a clinical referral, not a matter for the clinician to attempt alone. Do not view, download, or forward the image to "verify" it. [7]

Ensure information sharing is lawful and purposeful. Statutory child-protection reporting protections generally allow you to share relevant clinical information with the authority for the purpose of protecting a child, overriding common-law confidentiality. Share what is relevant and necessary, document what you shared and why, and do not access or transmit the image itself. [5]

[5] [7]

Specific Subtypes & Scenarios

Financial sextortion in an adolescent boy. A teenage boy — this subtype disproportionately affects young men — receives a sexual video from a "girl" he met online, sends one in return, and is immediately told to pay or the video goes to his contacts. He presents in crisis. The response is acute-suicide-risk assessment first, then the dual report and image-removal request. O'Malley documented the acute and enduring harms of this pattern. [10]

Peer image-based abuse after a breakup. A girl's consensual image, sent to a boyfriend, is forwarded around her school after the relationship ends. She is acutely distressed and refusing to attend school. The harm is the non-consensual distribution. Report for image removal, assess suicide risk, engage the school, and frame the young person unequivocally as the victim. Henry, Flynn and Powell situated this within technology-facilitated violence. [12]

Adult grooming progressing to a meeting. A younger adolescent has been speaking to an older online contact for months, received gifts and money, and the offender is now pushing for a meeting. The grooming process is well advanced. This is a safeguarding emergency: report immediately, assess for contact that may have already occurred, and arrange forensic examination if indicated. Kloess, Hamilton-Giachritsis and Beech described the offense process that leads here. [5]

Consensual sexting that has not (yet) been weaponised. A parent discovers their adolescent sent a consensual image to a peer of similar age. No coercion, no redistribution, no adult. The clinical task is to distinguish this normative behaviour from abuse, provide anticipatory guidance about the risks of redistribution, and avoid a punitive or criminalising response that harms the young person. Madigan and colleagues quantified how common this is. [2]

Younger child and child sexual abuse material. A younger child is found to have been recorded being abused, or images of a child are discovered on a device. This is the most severe end and demands immediate safeguarding: report, arrange forensic and child-protection paediatric assessment, and ensure the child's removal from ongoing harm. Gottfried and colleagues framed the overlap of child pornography and online solicitation. [7]

Young person with disabilities. A young person with a cognitive or communication disability may be especially vulnerable to online grooming and less able to disclose. Maintain a high index of suspicion, use communication supports and trusted carers, and recognise that the non-specific behavioural signs may be the only signal. Diagnostic overshadowing is a particular danger here. [11]

Complications & Pitfalls

• Confiscating or wiping a device, thereby destroying the only forensic evidence. [5]
• Viewing, downloading, or forwarding the image to "verify" it, which constitutes further distribution. [7]
• Blaming the young person for the sext, or framing consensual sexting as the young person's fault. [2]
• Failing to screen for and manage acute suicide risk, especially in financial sextortion. [10]
• Treating the report to child protection as the endpoint — image removal and mental-health follow-up continue. [14]
• Conducting a leading or forensic interview that contaminates the subsequent process. [5]
• Assuming online and offline abuse are mutually exclusive — they co-occur. [8]
• Missing the higher-risk populations — sexual and gender minority youth, children with disabilities, those in out-of-home care. [11]
• Promising the young person total secrecy or an outcome you cannot guarantee. [16]
• Not knowing the local online-safety reporting pathway before you need it. [7]

[5] [7] [14]

Prognosis & Disposition

The outcome hinges less on the abuse itself than on the response the young person receives — clinical, family, and systemic. A young person who is believed, supported, and connected to effective image removal and mental-health care has a fundamentally better trajectory than one who is blamed, isolated, or left with circulating images. [14]

The immediate disposition follows the safety assessment. An acutely suicidal young person is admitted or placed under intensive supervision; a young person with an active perpetrator threat may need a place of safety or police involvement before discharge; a young person whose exploitation has been reported and who has a robust safety plan and family support may be discharged with close follow-up. [4] [10]

Mental-health sequelae are common and can be enduring. Anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, self-harm, and reputational damage all follow image-based abuse and sextortion, and they may persist long after the images are removed. O'Malley documented both the short-term crisis and the long-term wellbeing impacts. Arrange proactive mental-health follow-up, not reactive care. [10]

Re-victimisation is a real risk. A young person whose first experience was met with a poor response is more vulnerable to further exploitation and less likely to disclose again. This is why the quality of the first encounter — belief, non-blame, action — is prognostically important, not merely process. [16]

Follow-up belongs to the disposition, not an afterthought. Arrange a review appointment, ensure the young person and family know who to contact, coordinate with the child-protection authority and school, and check that the image-removal request has progressed. A young person recovering from online exploitation needs the same continuity of care as any child with a complex, ongoing problem. [7]

Special Populations

Sexual and gender minority youth. This group experiences technology-facilitated abuse at substantially higher rates than peers. Turner and colleagues' JAMA Network Open study documented elevated prevalence, and the clinical implication is a lower threshold to ask, a trauma-informed and inclusive approach, and awareness that the young person may fear disclosure of their identity as much as the abuse. [11]

Children with disabilities. Cognitive, communication and social disabilities increase vulnerability to online grooming and reduce the likelihood of prompt disclosure. Use communication supports, involve carers who know the baseline, and resist diagnostic overshadowing — behavioural change is a finding, not an attribute of the disability. [11]

Adolescents and mature minors. Respect emerging autonomy while discharging the safeguarding duty. Involve the young person in decisions about how the report proceeds where it is safe to do so, and consider the mature-minor and confidentiality frameworks. An adolescent who disclosed exploitation needs an honest explanation of what will happen next. [16]

Young people in out-of-home care. These young people are known to the child-protection system and remain vulnerable. Identify the current statutory guardian for consent and notification, and recognise that a new online concern may require a report to the same or a different authority depending on the placement. [7]

Youth-justice-involved young people. Young people in contact with the justice system may have complex histories as both victims and perpetrators of image-based abuse. Maintain the safeguarding frame, recognise the dual role, and ensure reports address the protection need without criminalising a young person who is also a victim. [6]

Indigenous families. Apply trauma-informed, culturally safe practice. Acknowledge the history of statutory intervention in Indigenous communities, identify kinship and community supports, and ensure the response strengthens rather than fragments family connections. The duty to report remains, but how you communicate matters profoundly. [7]

Migrant and refugee families. Use professional interpreters, pace the conversation for trauma and language, and recognise that unfamiliarity with local online-safety systems and reporting pathways is a barrier you can lower. Report if the threshold is met, and advocate for accessible services. [7]

Evidence, Guidelines & Regional Differences

Henry and Powell's 2018 literature review of empirical research on technology-facilitated sexual violence remains the foundational framing of the field, defining the scope and cataloguing the harms. It established that online sexual violence is real, measurable, and clinically consequential — not a lesser or virtual form of abuse. [6]

Kloess, Beech and Harkins' 2014 review of online child sexual exploitation gave the field its prevalence, process and offender-characteristics frame, and Kloess, Hamilton-Giachritsis and Beech's 2019 analysis of the offense process behind internet communication platforms operationalised the grooming mechanism clinicians now recognise. Ringenberg and colleagues' 2022 scoping review mapped how grooming strategies evolved pre- and post-internet. [1] [5] [9]

On prevalence, Madigan and colleagues' 2018 JAMA Pediatrics meta-analysis quantified sexting among youth, and Mori and colleagues' 2020 meta-analysis extended the picture to emerging adults. Patel and Roesch's 2022 meta-analysis gave the field defensible prevalence figures for technology-facilitated sexual violence broadly. [2] [3] [15]

On the acute-harm end, Patchin and Hinduja's national survey established sextortion among adolescents as a measurable phenomenon, and O'Malley's work on financial sextortion documented its acute and enduring mental-health impacts. Gottfried and colleagues' 2020 review framed child pornography and online solicitation for the clinician, and Hong and colleagues translated digital sextortion into a paediatric-intervention agenda. [4] [7] [10] [14]

Mitchell, Finkelhor and Wolak's 2005 work established the link between the internet and family or acquaintance abuse, and Thomas and colleagues' 2023 study showed how offenders overcome victim resistance in technology-assisted abuse. Katz and colleagues' 2021 study explored the disclosure architecture of internet child sexual abuse. [8] [13] [16]

[1] [6] [7]

Exam Pearls

[5] [7] [14]

References

1. [1]Kloess JA, Beech AR, Harkins L Online child sexual exploitation: prevalence, process, and offender characteristics Trauma Violence Abuse, 2014.PMID 24608540
2. [2]Madigan S, Ly A, Rash CL, Van Ouytsel J, Temple JR Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Sexting Behavior Among Youth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis JAMA Pediatr, 2018.PMID 29482215
3. [3]Patel U, Roesch R The Prevalence of Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review Trauma Violence Abuse, 2022.PMID 32930064
4. [4]Patchin JW, Hinduja S Sextortion Among Adolescents: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Youth Sex Abuse, 2020.PMID 30264657
5. [5]Kloess JA, Hamilton-Giachritsis CE, Beech AR Offense Processes of Online Sexual Grooming and Abuse of Children Via Internet Communication Platforms Sex Abuse, 2019.PMID 28715937
6. [6]Henry N, Powell A Technology-Facilitated Sexual Violence: A Literature Review of Empirical Research Trauma Violence Abuse, 2018.PMID 27311818
7. [7]Gottfried ED, Shier EK, Mulay AL Child Pornography and Online Sexual Solicitation Curr Psychiatry Rep, 2020.PMID 32025821
8. [8]Mitchell KJ, Finkelhor D, Wolak J The internet and family and acquaintance sexual abuse Child Maltreat, 2005.PMID 15611326
9. [9]Ringenberg TR, Seigfried-Spellar KC, Rayz JM, Rogers MK A scoping review of child grooming strategies: pre- and post-internet Child Abuse Negl, 2022.PMID 34801848
10. [10]O'Malley RL Short-Term and Long-Term Impacts of Financial Sextortion on Victim's Mental Well-Being J Interpers Violence, 2023.PMID 36866591
11. [11]Turner HA, Finkelhor D, Mitchell K, Colburn D Prevalence of Technology-Facilitated Abuse Among Sexual and Gender Minority Youths JAMA Netw Open, 2024.PMID 38306097
12. [12]Henry N, Flynn A, Powell A Technology-Facilitated Domestic and Sexual Violence: A Review Violence Against Women, 2020.PMID 32998673
13. [13]Thomas K, Hamilton-Giachritsis C, Branigan P, Hanson E Offenders' approaches to overcoming victim resistance in technology-assisted child sexual abuse Child Abuse Negl, 2023.PMID 37182413
14. [14]Hong S, Lu N, Wu D, Jimenez DE, Milanaik RL Digital sextortion: Internet predators and pediatric interventions Curr Opin Pediatr, 2020.PMID 31789977
15. [15]Mori C, Cooke JE, Temple JR, Ly A, Lu Y, Anderson N, Rash C, Madigan S The Prevalence of Sexting Behaviors Among Emerging Adults: A Meta-Analysis Arch Sex Behav, 2020.PMID 32072397
16. [16]Katz C, Piller S, Glucklich T, Matty DE Stop Waking the Dead: Internet Child Sexual Abuse and Perspectives on Its Disclosure J Interpers Violence, 2021.PMID 30160592