A Patchwork of Child Protection – Mapping the Gaps in Institutional Safeguarding Measures: A Scoping Review

Child maltreatment is a critical global issue, with institutions playing a central role in both protecting children and fostering the competence required to prevent and address maltreatment effectively. This scoping review aims to provide an overview on how institutional safeguarding measures are conceptualized and represented in the international scientific literature, in addition to identifying research gaps, and suggesting directions to promote evidence-based improvements. Following JBI guidelines and the PRISMA-ScR checklist, the databases OVID and PubMed were systematically searched from its inception to March 2025. Investigating levels of safeguarding measures addressing child maltreatment in institutions needed to be the focus of the studies, along with meeting predefined inclusion criteria. Of 6,562 articles screened, 248 met inclusion criteria. Our findings show a noteworthy increase in publications on institutional safeguarding since 2017, with an average of 18.20 studies per year. In comparison, publications prior to 2017 averaged only two studies annually. Most studies were conducted in high-income regions, particularly the United States, Canada, and Europe, while lower-income regions were underrepresented. Educational and healthcare institutions were the most studied institutional contexts, accounting for 83.3% of studies, while faith-based and sport organizations were scarcely studied. In line with the safeguarding framework of the German Round Table on Child Sexual Abuse in Relationships of Dependence and Power in Private and Public Institutions and in Families, institutional safeguarding was conceptualized as comprising multiple levels. The levels consist of the following: analysis, prevention, intervention and reappraisal. The majority of research focused on prevention measures, particularly addressing sexual violence and abuse. There was a lack of research on other safeguarding levels. A major challenge identified was the inconsistency in terminology and definitions of safeguarding measures, hindering cross-study comparison. To address these gaps, future research should prioritize more inclusive, cross-sector, and cross-regional studies that develop standardized frameworks for safeguarding measures and establish dedicated platforms for publication.