Sexual victimisation in college and university settings: a scoping review of student experiences, disclosure pathways, coping strategies and family-related evidence.

OBJECTIVES: To map empirical evidence on sexual victimisation among higher education students, focusing on disclosure pathways, coping strategies and the extent and nature of family-related evidence. DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, ERIC via EBSCOhost, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Citation Index, Google Scholar and citation tracking. The most recent search was conducted in June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Primary empirical quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies published between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2025 were eligible if they included higher education students and/or family members and reported on at least one focal domain: disclosure, reporting, help-seeking, coping, recovery, social support or family involvement after sexual victimisation. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers screened records and extracted data using a standardised form. Quantitative findings were summarised descriptively; qualitative and mixed-methods findings were charted by focal domain and integrated narratively. Equity-relevant characteristics were mapped using PROGRESS-Plus. RESULTS: After screening and eligibility verification, 86 studies met the Population-Concept-Context criteria. These comprised 70 journal articles, 11 theses/dissertations and 5 conference proceedings papers. Most studies were conducted in North America and employed cross-sectional survey designs. Definitions and measures of sexual victimisation varied widely. When disclosure occurred, it was most often directed to peers and other informal supporters, whereas formal reporting to campus, legal or healthcare systems was less common. Coping responses ranged from social support, counselling, safety planning and advocacy to avoidance, self-blame, substance use and academic withdrawal. Family members were rarely sampled directly; family-related evidence was usually indirect, derived from students' accounts of disclosure recipients or perceived reactions. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence indicates persistent gaps in non-US contexts, distance-learning settings, research on male and gender-diverse students' experiences and direct family-level research. Campus responses should be trauma-informed and equity-informed, while recognising that evidence for family-inclusive interventions remains preliminary and requires further empirical development.