Building societal resilience against child grooming
A design thinking approach to understanding the problem and priorities
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11338102 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Christina Thorpe (0000-0002-2359-883X, Swim Ireland, corresponding author), Fiona Jennings (0000-0002-2019-3845, Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), Armin Shams (Swim Ireland), Lin Yuan Chong (Swim Ireland), Kamran Mir (0000-0001-7399-7807, Swim Ireland), Brian Barry (0000-0001-8597-0345, Trinity College Dublin), Susan McKeever (Technological University Dublin), Matt Bowden (0000-0001-7840-2542, Technological University Dublin) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 183 |
| Pages | 108834 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Children and Youth Services Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0190-7409 • E-ISSN: 1873-7765 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.childyouth.2026.108834 |
| OpenAlex | W7129673450 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 25 |
Child grooming is a pervasive yet often hidden issue, with children frequently delaying disclosure until abuse or exploitation has occurred. This study presents the first empirical phase of GroSafe, a National Challenge Fund project led by TU Dublin in partnership with the Irish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (ISPCC) and funded by Research Ireland. Aligning with the Empathise and Define stages of Design Thinking, this concept phase aimed to understand the problem space and co-design a solution grounded in stakeholder needs. Stakeholder mapping was followed by qualitative interviews with 33 professionals across law enforcement, education, social services, and advocacy. The frontline professionals were engaged for their systemic perspectives and also as informed proxies for children’s lived experiences, given their daily safeguarding roles. Thematic analysis of interview data generated 15 structured needs statements, which were subsequently prioritised by 20 of the 33 participants through a structured ranking process. Stakeholder insights revealed six key barriers to early reporting of grooming: limited awareness among children and caregivers; fear and distrust of authorities; discomfort discussing personal experiences; shame and embarrassment; cultural stigma inhibiting open discussion; and inaccessible or unclear reporting pathways. These issues contribute to persistent underreporting, leading to data gaps and delayed intervention. This phase generated a set of stakeholder-informed design priorities and a conceptual framework to guide the future development of a technology-enabled intervention. The outcome is a flexible, stakeholder-informed structure to inform subsequent design decisions. Subsequent phases have engaged young people and carers in co-design activities, helping to ensure that future developments are grounded in their needs
Conceptual framework · Distrust · General partnership · Grounded theory · Poison control · Qualitative research · Safeguarding · Stakeholder · Thematic analysis · Child Abuse and Trauma · Children's Rights and Participation · Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
Do Data Characteristics Change According to the Number of Scale Points Used? An Experiment Using 5-Point, 7-Point and 10-Point Scales
Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management
Can’t Fix This? Innovation, Social Change, and Solutionism in Design Thinking
Grooming and Child Sexual Abuse in Organizational Settings—an Expanded Role for International Human Rights Law
It’s a group-on-one’
One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive) thematic analysis
The social ecology of resilience
Toward a Universal Definition of Child Sexual Grooming
| Highly cited | No |
|---|