Back

I couldn't confirm they were alone because they were over the phone: A qualitative study of safeguarding during remote sexual and reproductive health consultations in England and Wales

Spurway, C.; Witney, T.; Munro, H.; Josh, J.; Woode Owusu, M.; Gibbs, J.; Williams, I.; Solomon, D.; Copas, A.; Ross, J. D.; Jackson, L.; Burns, F.

2026-02-04 sexual and reproductive health
10.64898/2026.02.03.26345229 medRxiv
Show abstract

Remote consultations, including telephone, video, text or web-based consultations, are now common in sexual and reproductive health services (SRHS) in England and Wales, offering convenience and efficiency but raising concerns about safeguarding service users compared to in-person care. Ensuring protection and support for individuals remain central to SRHS. While guidance exists, evidence on how safeguarding is enacted remotely is limited. This study explores how safeguarding is managed in remote SRHS, examining associated challenges, benefits, and perceptions of acceptability. This qualitative study, part of the CONNECT study (NIHR153151), explored safeguarding in remote delivery of SRHS across three diverse case study areas in England and Wales. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with service users and providers (March 2024-January 2025). Data were thematically analysed using inductive and deductive approaches. Eighty-nine interviews were conducted with 54 service users/potential service users and 35 professional stakeholders across three study sites. Four key themes were identified: (1) challenges of delivering remote safeguarding in practice, (2) importance of a safe space for the patient, (3) one size approach does not fit all, and (4) strategies to support remote safeguarding. Participants described difficulties identifying risks without visual cues, variable comfort with disclosure, and privacy concerns. Providers used adaptive, collaborative approaches to build trust, ensure safety, and tailor safeguarding to individual circumstances. Both service users and providers recognised the effectiveness of remote safeguarding largely depended on clinician judgement, structured questioning, and sensitive communication. While remote consultations offered flexibility, remote safeguarding relied on service users having access to safe, private space. People with language barriers or those less able to create a safe space at home, such as those experiencing housing instability or coercive control may also have greater safeguarding needs. Ensuring access to in-person options, clear safeguarding protocols, and appropriate clinician training is essential to mitigate these challenges. Author summaryDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, sexual and reproductive health services used more remote appointments, such as phone, video, or online consultations. These appointments can make it easier for some people to get care. But there are concerns about whether staff can spot safeguarding issues, such as people who may be at risk of harm, without seeing them in person. In this study, we spoke with people who use sexual and reproductive health services, people who had never used these services before, and staff who work in these settings. People described challenges with remote appointments, including not being able to see body language, feeling unsure about talking about sensitive issues, and worries about privacy at home. Staff described changing how they worked by asking careful questions, building trust, and making safeguarding fit each persons situation. Both service users and staff felt that keeping people safe during remote appointments depends on clear communication and professional judgement. It is harder when people do not have a private space, face language difficulties, or live in unsafe housing or controlling relationships. Our findings show the importance of keeping in-person appointments available and making sure staff have the right training and guidance.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.3%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 11%
17.4%
3
Sexually Transmitted Infections
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
4
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 4%
6.3%
6
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.6%
7
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.3%
9
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.9%
10
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
11
Wellcome Open Research
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.7%
12
BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
13
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.5%
14
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
15
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.3%
16
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
17
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
SSM - Population Health
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 71%
0.9%
20
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
22
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%