Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-14264-9 RESEARCH Open Access Prevalence of sexual harassment among young Spaniards before, during, and after the COVID‑19 lockdown period in Spain Laura Vall‑Llosera Casanovas1,2 , Laura Serra1,2* , Carme Saurina Canals1,2 , Belén Sanz‑Barbero2,3 , Carmen Vives‑Cases2,4 , Maria José López2,5,6 , Laura Otero‑García2,7 , Gloria Pérez2,5,6 and Gemma Renart‑Vicens1,2    Abstract Background: Sexual harassment is a type of coercion, including social pressure, intimidation, physical force, and ver‑ bal acts, in addition to other forms such as cyber-harassment, recognized as a major important public health problem. Methods: This cross-sectional study, based on a survey administered online to men and women aged 18 to 35 years and living in Spain throughout 15th and 28th October 2020, aims to analyze the prevalence and factors associated with sexual harassment among young people in Spain within the last 12 months, particularly according to the COVID- 19 lockdown period. It has been conducted by bivariate analysis and robust Poisson regression models. The final sample includes 2.515 participants. Results: The results indicate that women were almost twice as likely as men to experience sexual harassment (49% vs 22.2%). Also, among heterosexual men and women, the estimated prevalence was lower concerning that observed among bisexuals, gays, and lesbians (31.5% vs 53, 39.2, and 34.6% respectively). The prevalence percentage in the 18–24 age group was twice high as that observed in the 30–35 age group. Finally, during the lockdown period, the harassment through electronic channels increased (32.6% vs 16.5 and 17.8% before and after this period, respectively) and decreased on public roads (22.9% vs 63.4 and 54.4% pre-lockdown and post-lockdown periods, respectively). Conclusion: These findings highlight that sexual harassment presents a high prevalence among young people, especially cyber-harassment, and workplace harassment and it is important to be aware that young women are more likely to suffer harassment and even more if they do not have a partner or have LGB orientation. During the lockdown sexual harassment has moved from public spaces to the social network. Keywords: Sexual harassment, COVID-19, Lockdown period, Young people, Gender, sexuality Keypoints • The incidence of SH is higher among women, young *Correspondence: laura.serra@udg.edu people, non-heterosexuals and those with paid work. 1 • The prevalence and observed prevalence estimates Research Group on Statistics, Econometrics and Health (GRECS), University of Girona, C/ de la Universitat de Girona, 10 17003 Girona, Spain are higher for people who do not live with a partner Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creat​iveco​ mmons.​org/​publi​cdoma​in/​zero/1.​0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 2 of 14 or who have never had a partner compared to those one in five women (21%) have been subjected to this who do. issue within the 12 months preceding the survey. • The evolution of the prevalence of SH detected Apart from possible physical injury, stalking SH before, during and after the lockdown period in typically have effects on women’s physical and mental Spain indicates that, for the most part, it takes place health. According to Kosterina et al. [21], women who outside the home environment and public settings. had been victims of physical or sexual abuse are more • The temporary closure of workplaces, classrooms likely to report dysmenorrhea, dyspareunia, migraines, and public environments during the lockdown period gastrointestinal disorders, chronic pain, hypertension prevented face-to-face harassment, this type of con- and one or more sexually transmitted diseases. Jung duct shifted to the digital environment. et al. [19] found high rates of somatic complaints such as low energy, sleep problems, headaches, muscle ten- sion, constant fatigue, weight change, back pain, night- Introduction mares, poor appetite or trembling limbs in women who Sexual violence (SV) encompasses different types of had experienced physical or sexual abuse. And these abuse that range from verbal harassment to forced pen- physical symptoms could persist long after the abuse etration, as well as an array of types of coercion, from was over [31]. Regarding to mental health effects and social pressure and intimidation to physical force [40]. according to Brown et al. [5] and Gica et al. [17], sex- It also includes unwanted sexual advances or sexual har- ual violence experiences are associated with suicidal assment (SH), which also ranges from physical forms thoughts and suicide attempts, anxiety, depression, through verbal acts, in addition to other forms such as posttraumatic stress disorders, low self-esteem and cyberharassment. antisocial behaviors [2]. reported high average rates of The World Health Organization (WHO) defines SH as alcohol, smoke and drugs abuse and eating disorders “any unwelcome sexual advance, unwelcome request for among sexual victims. sexual favor, verbal or physical conduct or gesture of a All these types of assaults suffered by women, rang- sexual nature, or any other behavior of sexual nature that ing from minor injuries to death, have a significant might reasonably be expected or be perceived to cause public health and social costs. According to Sewell [36] offence, humiliation or intimidation to the person” [20]. victims of stalking and SH increase their frequency of Institutions like International Labor Organization (ILO) health care utilization and the more severe the vio- have used similar definition with an explicit mention of lence, the more physician visits women make. Regard- the workplace or educational environments: the hierar- ing to social costs, stalking and SH it is recognized as chical and gendered power relations within occupational an expression of sexism that reinforces gender-based or educational settings have naturalized sexual contract inequalities in the distribution of social power and in which some male colleagues or academics consider prevents the integration and permanence of women in it a right to demand sex with female juniors or students work environments [29, 32]. in return for career or grades. Insistent or leering states, Violence against women has been recognized as a pub- unwanted physical contact, sexual jokes, indecent expo- lic health problem [37] and health priority in 2013 guide- sure, sending sexually explicit pictures or photos, humili- lines published by WHO [16], because the number of ations or intimidation are few examples. On the other annual injuries and death due to violence against women hand, stalking is a pattern of repeated unwanted and and girls is high enough to demand the type of active unwarranted harassing behaviors directed by one indi- interventions and public policies [24]. Although it is a vidual in a way to cause fear, anxiety or distress: obscene, recurring public health problem over the years, recently, threatening, annoying or silent phone calls, being fol- thanks to published information on reported cases, lowed or spied on, having inappropriate proposals made there is evidence that the risk of being subjected to SH on internet or social networks, for example [10]. among young adult women below the age of 30 is becom- U.S. Centers of Disease Control Prevention estimates ing a threatening matter due to its alarming prevalence that as many as 500,000 women are stalked each year (38% in the European Union) in comparison with 24% by a current or former intimate partner. This number observed in older population groups. The negative social is likely to be a serious underestimate as it does not and health consequences of SH, such as depression, post- include women who are stalked by strangers or casual traumatic stress disorder, a feeling of being unsafe in pub- acquaintances [38]. Also, and according to the 2014 lic spaces, low self-esteem, eating disorders, and suicidal European FRA-Survey about Violence Against Women, thoughts and attempts have also been registered among one in two women (55%) in the European Union has young adults and adolescents, with these consequences experienced SH at least once since the age of 15, and being worse in the case of women and members of the Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 3 of 14 LGBT community, regardless of their migrant status or confidence level of 95%, and prevalence estimates with a ethnic background [9, 33]. precision of ±0.9. Multiple types of risk factors have been associated with The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of SH behavior, from contextual variables, such as numeri- the University of Alicante (code UA-2020-07-07) and was cal and/or normative male dominance in universities or carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Dec- social media [27] to others more related with the individ- laration of Helsinki. uals’ social circumstances, such as prior sexual victimi- zation, hostility, alcohol consumption, and traditional Variables gender role beliefs [25]. Dependent variable Coinciding with the proposal of a new national law to Data on SH exposure were collected based on 11 items, address SV and guarantee sexual freedom [8], this study following national (2019 Violence Against Women Macro forms part of a larger project on SV, SH, and the con- survey) and international guidelines [39]. Whenever a sumption of pornography among young adults in Spain. respondent answered affirmatively to having experienced The data collection was carried out at the end of 2020 and any of the described actions within the last 12 months, served as a chance to assess the impact of the lockdown we considered that such person had been exposed to SH. period, applied to control the spread of the 2019 corona- To account for the effect of COVID-19, we determined virus disease (COVID-19), on SH among young people whether these SH situations had occurred before, during, and its associated sociodemographic and economic fac- or after the lockdown in Spain between 14 March 2020 tors. Previous studies have already brought to light the and 9 May 2020. increase of cases and the severity of different forms of SV among young couples and non-formal couples during Covariates the COVID-19 lockdown period [4, 11]. Although during Sociodemographic, sexual orientation, and relationship this period personal contact between young individu- covariates that have previously been correlated with SH als was limited, SH were easily made via social networks were included in the study (see Table 1). [18]. The aim of this study was to analyze the prevalence Some of these original variables were recoded for the and factors associated with SH among young people in statistical analysis. The age variable was recoded into Spain within the last 12 months, particularly according three intervals: 18 to 24 years, 25 to 29 years, and 30 to to the COVID-19 lockdown period. According with this 35 years. The variable “Maximum level of education objective our hypotheses are the following ones: H1) Peo- completed” was recoded into two different categories: ple in more vulnerable and unsafe situations are more secondary education completed and higher education, likely to suffer SH and stalking situations; H2) Youngers because the category primary or lower education was are more likely to suffer SH and stalking situations; H3) infrequent. SH and stalking are behaviors that take place, mainly, The sexual orientation variable was initially recoded at the workplace and at public environments; and H4) into four categories according to their exclusive attrac- During the lockdown period, SH and stalking situations tion: to same-sex ((1) gays and (2) lesbians), to opposite- changed at the digital environment. sex ((3) heterosexuals), and (4) bisexuals. To include this variable in the multivariate analysis, it was grouped into Methods two categories: lesbians, gays, and bisexuals (LGB) and Study population and sample heterosexuals. Respondents who were not attracted to This was a cross-sectional study related to the survey either sex were considered missing values (n = 6). “Sexual violence among Young People” administered The cohabitation variable was categorized into continu- online to men and women aged 18 to 35 and living in ous cohabitation and non-cohabitation, the latter includ- Spain throughout the study period. The participants ing both intermittent cohabitation and non-cohabitation. included in the sample were selected from a volunteer An additional category was added to both relationship panel of 138,393 adults over the age of 16. The panel is variables for people who reported never having had a designed to be fully representative of the non-institution- partner. alized Spanish civilian population. The panelists received individual invitations for exclusive use inviting them to Data analysis answer the survey by email. Those who accepted received Using the covariates described, a bivariate analysis was a link to answer the survey. The final sample includes first carried out to determine the prevalence of SH within 2515 participants with specific quotas by sex, age, auton- the last 12 months (SH12m), both among the total sam- omous community (region) and country of birth. This ple and that stratified by sex. Likewise, the prevalence of sample size ensured a sampling error of ±5%, with a SH before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 4 of 14 Table 1 Original covariates Variable type Variable Response categories Sociodemographic Sex Male Female Year of birth – Country of birth Spain Outside Spain Maximum level of education completed Primary or lower education Secondary education completed Higher education Employment status Employed Not employed Sexual orientation Sexual orientation I’m exclusively attracted to women I’m usually attracted to women, but occasionally also attracted to men I’m attracted to women and men alike I’m usually attracted to men, but occasionally also attracted to women I’m exclusively attracted to men I’m not attracted to neither women nor men Couple relationship Currently with a partner Yes No Currently living with a partner Yes, we live at the same address Yes, but only intermittently No, we live at different addresses Another situation period was also determined. Because the surveyed indi- identified as heterosexual (75.7%) and 67.2% claimed viduals could have experienced SH at any time within the to be in a relationship at the time, although only 38.9% previous 12 months, these three analysis periods were not cohabitated with their partner (Table 2). mutually exclusive. Over a third of the participants (35.7%) stated having Next, we describe the prevalence of each of the 11 been exposed to SH within the past 12 months. The prev- SH12m behaviors cited above among the total study sam- alence of SH was 22.2% among men and 49.0% among ple and that stratified by both sex and period. women. In all cases, the likelihood of SH decreased with Finally, Poisson regression models with robust variance age and was lower among participants cohabitating with were estimated to analyze the association between the a partner (27.3% vs 39.6%). In the case of women, the covariates and the prevalence of SH12m among the total prevalence was higher among those who reported bisex- study sample and the different analyzed periods. ual orientation (64.6%) and lower among lesbian partici- Interactions between sex and the covariates included pants (34.6%). In the case of men, the highest prevalence in these models were also explored. A statistically signifi- was reported by gay participants (39.2%) and lower cant correlation was only observed with respect to the among heterosexuals (18.3%) (see Supplementary Table sexual orientation variable for the total sample and both S1). the lockdown and post-lockdown periods. Thus, this Table 3 shows the significant bivariate relationships interaction was included in all final models, except for explored between SH and the analyzed covariates in each the pre-lockdown period. of the three periods under study. The prevalence of SH decreased from 30.4 to 11.4% during the lockdown and Results increased to up to 18% after the lockdown. The results The distribution by sex and age was very homogene- indicate that the prevalence of SH12m was higher among ous, with a majority of the participants being young women than men and decreased with age in all three people born in Spain (87.8%) and with higher level edu- study periods. The sexual orientation behavior showed cation (69.0%). Of all respondents, 61.6% claimed to be differences in the prevalence of SH between the three employed at the time of the survey and 78.4% had worked analyzed periods being greater during the pre-lockdown at some point during the previous year. The majority and post-lockdown periods among bisexual participants Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 5 of 14 Table 2 Sociodemographic characteristics of the participants in The described patterns were maintained during the the “Sexual Violence among Young People” survey administered pre-lockdown and post-lockdown periods; however, to the Spanish population aged 18–35 years during the lockdown, the most frequent behaviors were % N to have received inappropriate, humiliating, intimidat- ing or offensive insinuations on social networks such Age (years) as Facebook, Instagram or Twitter with a 35.1% preva- 18–24 34.6 870 lence (33.3% among men and 36.4% among women) 25–29 28.1 706 and have received sexually explicit and inappropriate 30–35 37.3 939 e-mails, WhatsApp messages or text messages that have Sex someone feel offended, humiliated or intimidated with a Male 49.8 1253 32.6% prevalence (34.2% among men and 31.5% among Female 50.2 1262 women). In contrast, behaviors whose prevalence clearly Country of birth decreased during the lockdown period are also worth Another country 12.2 307 noting, including have had unwanted physical contact Spain 87.8 2208 with unnecessarily close proximity, touching parts of Education level (nc = 25) someone’s body, kisses/hugs or anything else not wanted Secondary education completed 31.0 771 with a 9.7% prevalence (11.4% among men and 8.5% Higher level education 69.0 1719 among women) and the insistent or lascivious looks that Have you ever had a paid job (nc = 14)? have made someone feel intimidated with a 22.9% preva- Yes, currently 61.6 1540 lence (9.6% among men and 32.1% among women). Yes, previously 28.4 710 Table 5 shows the results of the multivariate estimation No 10.0 251 of the prevalence ratios among the total sample through- Have you had a paid job in the last year (nc = 14)? out the different periods. Within the last 12 months, Yes 78.4 1961 women were 84.7% more likely to be sexually harassed No 21.6 540 than men (95% CI; PR [1.54, 2.22]), with this issue being Sexual orientation (nc = 38) particularly prevalent among those with a paid job (95% Lesbian 1.1 26 CI; PR [1.18, 1.56]), who did not cohabitate with a partner Gay 4.9 122 (95% CI; PR [1.16, 1.56]), or who had never had a partner Bisexual 18.3 454 (95% CI; PR [1.36, 1.79]) compared with those who were Heterosexual 75.7 1875 in a relationship. In contrast, the likelihood of suffering Currently in a relationship (nc = 52) SH was 23.7% lower among participants of the 30–35 age Yes 67.2 1656 group compared with those aged up to 25 years (95% CI; No 22.4 551 PR [0.66, 0.88]) P. The interaction between sex and sexual Never had a relationship 10.4 256 orientation showed that heterosexuals are less likely to Currently living with a partner (nc = 69) suffer SH than LGB, specifically 43.0% less in the case of Yes 38.9 951 men and 22.79% less in women. No 28.1 688 The same relationships described within the last I don’t have/never had a partner 33.0 807 12 months were observed during both the pre and post lockdown periods, with the only difference that the likeli- hood of suffering SH was also lower among participants of the 25–29 age group compared with younger individu- and higher among gay participants during the lockdown als before the lockdown period (95% CI; PR [0.74, 0.98]), period. Not having a partner was associated with a higher although no correlation between sex and sexual orienta- prevalence of this issue in all three periods, while having tion was identified. These relationships changed the most a job was only associated with pre-lockdown period. during the lockdown period, as the effect of sex, work The most prevalent SH behaviors reported within the status, and age on the likelihood of suffering SH was lost, last 12 months (Table 4) were the insistent or lascivious although a greater likelihood was still maintained among looks that have made someone feel intimidated with a young individuals who did not cohabitate with a partner 61.5% prevalence among the total sample (34.8% among or who had never had a partner compared with those men and 71.4% among women) and have received sexual who did (95% CI; PR [1.01, 1.99] vs. 95% CI; PR [1.58, jokes or offensive comments about someone’s body or 2.92]). Finally, the interaction between sex and sexual private life with a 41.6% prevalence (37.4% among men orientation allows us to affirm that, during the lockdown and 42.4% among women). period, heterosexual participants were less likely (62.4 Table 3 Bivariate relationship between the prevalence of SH and the analyzed covariates according to the study period (before, during, and after the lockdown period), based on the “Sexual Violence among Young People” survey administered to the Spanish population aged 18–35 years Had you ever experienced SH before the Did you experience SH during the lockdown Have you experienced SH after the lockdown lockdown period? period? period? Yes % of yes No % of no p Yes % of yes No % of no p Yes % of yes No % of no p Age (years) < 0.001 0.008 < 0.001 18–24 310 36.7 535 63.3 110 13.1 731 86.9 190 22.5 656 77.5 Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health 25–29 216 31.2 476 68.8 88 12.7 603 87.3 138 19.9 554 80.1 30–35 221 24.0 701 76.0 81 8.8 840 91.2 115 12.5 807 87.5 Sex < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 Male 212 17.4 1005 82.6 114 9.4 1102 90.6 119 9.8 1099 90.2 Female 535 43.1 707 56.9 165 13.3 1072 86.7 324 26.1 918 73.9 (2022) 22:1888 Country of birth 0.063 0.182 < 0.633 Another country 105 35.0 195 65.0 41 13.7 259 86.3 57 19.0 243 81.0 Spain 642 29.7 1517 70.3 238 11.1 1915 88.9 386 17.9 1774 82.1 Education level 0.363 0.601 0.158 Secondary education completed 217 29.0 530 71.0 81 10.9 663 89.1 122 16.4 624 83.6 Higher level education 522 30.9 1168 69.1 196 11.6 1491 88.4 317 18.7 1375 81.3 Sexual orientation < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Lesbian 7 26.9 19 73.1 3 11.5 23 88.5 4 4.7 22 84.7 Gay 35 29.7 83 70.3 25 21.2 93 78.8 21 17.8 97 82.2 Bisexual 202 46.7 240 54.3 80 18.1 361 81.9 126 28.4 317 71.6 Heterosexual 496 27.0 1342 73.0 167 9.1 1666 90.9 290 15.8 1548 84.2 Currently in a relationship < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 Yes 458 28.1 1169 71.9 147 9.1 1476 90.9 247 15.2 1379 84.8 No 211 39.0 330 61.0 97 17.9 444 82.1 146 27.0 395 73.0 Never had a partner 67 27.3 178 72.7 32 13.2 211 86.8 44 17.9 202 82.1 Currently living with a partner < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 No 227 33.7 447 66.3 74 11.0 597 89.0 140 20.8 534 79.2 Yes 223 23.8 713 76.2 72 7.7 864 92.3 104 11.1 832 88.9 Never had/does not have a partner 278 35.4 508 64.6 129 16.5 655 83.5 190 24.1 597 75.9 Paid work within the last 12 months 0.009 0.740 0.740 Yes 607 31.6 1311 68.4 221 11.5 1693 88.5 221 18.3 1693 81.7 No 136 25.8 392 74.2 58 11.0 468 89.0 58 17.4 468 82.6 Total 747 30.4 1712 69.6 279 11.4 2174 88.6 443 18.0 2017 81.9 nc = 56 nc = 62 nc = 55 Page 6 of 14 Table 4 Prevalence of SH behaviors within the last 12 months according to the participants’ sex and the study period, based on the “Sexual Violence among Young People” survey administered to the Spanish population aged 18–35 years Sexual Complete sample Male Female harassment experience SH12m Lockdown period Lockdown period Lockdown period (n = 886) Before During After SH12m Before During After SH12m Before During After (n = 324) (n = 747) (n = 279) (n = 443) (n = 273) (n = 212) (n = 114) (n = 119) (n = 630) (n = 535) (n = 165) % % % % % % % % % % % % Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health Have you 35.7 30.4 11.4 18.0 22.2 17.4 9.4 9.8 49.0 43.1 13.3 26.1 experienced sexual harassment within the last 12 months? (2022) 22:1888 1.- Have 61.5 63.4 22.9 54.4 34.8 34.9 9.6 23.5 71.4 74.8 32.1 65.7 you been subjected to insistent or lascivious glances that made you feel intimidated? 2.- Have you 18.9 17.0 29.0 13.3 19.4 16.0 28.1 19.3 18.2 17.4 29.7 11.2 been shown or sent sexually explicit images or photos that made you feel offended, humiliated, or intimidated? 3.- Have 41.6 39.7 32.2 34.3 37.4 39.6 24.6 27.7 42.4 39.8 37.6 36.7 you been subjected to sexual jokes or offensive com‑ ments about your body or private life? Page 7 of 14 Table 4 (continued) Sexual Complete sample Male Female harassment experience SH12m Lockdown period Lockdown period Lockdown period (n = 886) Before During After SH12m Before During After SH12m Before During After (n = 324) (n = 747) (n = 279) (n = 443) (n = 273) (n = 212) (n = 114) (n = 119) (n = 630) (n = 535) (n = 165) % % % % % % % % % % % % Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health 4.- Have you 20.9 17.7 21.5 19.9 15.0 12.3 14.0 18.5 22.8 19.8 26.7 20.4 ever been made inap‑ propriate suggestions to have a date or any type of (2022) 22:1888 sexual activity that made you feel offended, humiliated, or intimidated? 5.- Have 25.9 25.0 9.7 18.7 19.4 16.5 11.4 18.5 28.1 28.4 8.5 18.8 you been subjected to unwanted physical con‑ tact, such as unnecessarily close proxim‑ ity, touching parts of your body, kissing/ hugging, or any other type of contact that you did not want? Page 8 of 14 Table 4 (continued) Sexual Complete sample Male Female harassment experience SH12m Lockdown period Lockdown period Lockdown period (n = 886) Before During After SH12m Before During After SH12m Before During After (n = 324) (n = 747) (n = 279) (n = 443) (n = 273) (n = 212) (n = 114) (n = 119) (n = 630) (n = 535) (n = 165) % % % % % % % % % % % % Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health 6.- Have you 23.6 20.1 35.1 20.1 24.2 20.8 33.3 27.7 22.7 19.8 36.4 17.3 received inappropriate, humiliating, intimidating, or offensive advances (2022) 22:1888 via social networks such as Facebook, Instagram, or Twitter? 7.- Have you 19.4 16.5 32.6 17.8 23.8 22.6 34.2 26.9 16.9 14.0 31.5 14.5 received sexu‑ ally explicit or inappropri‑ ate emails, WhatsApp messages, or text messages that made you feel offended, humiliated, or intimidated? 8.- Have you 1.4 1.1 0.7 0.9 2.6 2.4 1.8 1.7 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.6 been threat‑ ened with unpleasant consequences at work, such as a layoff, loss of salary supplements, continuous criticism of your work, etc. if you refused sexual advances? Page 9 of 14 Table 4 (continued) Sexual Complete sample Male Female Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health harassment experience SH12m Lockdown period Lockdown period Lockdown period (n = 886) Before During After SH12m Before During After SH12m Before During After (n = 324) (n = 747) (n = 279) (n = 443) (n = 273) (n = 212) (n = 114) (n = 119) (n = 630) (n = 535) (n = 165) % % % % % % % % % % % % (2022) 22:1888 9.- Has anyone 9.5 8.7 5.0 6.5 14.6 13.2 6.1 14.3 6.9 6.9 4.2 3.7 indecently exposed them‑ selves to you? 10.- Have you 2.2 1.9 3.9 1.3 5.1 4.2 6.1 4.2 0.9 0.9 2.4 0.3 been forced to watch porno‑ graphic mate‑ rial against your will? 11.- Other 7.9 7.1 5.4 5.6 4.8 4.7 3.5 4.2 9.0 8.0 6.7 6.2 than those listed above, have you experienced any similar situation with a sexual connotation that made you feel offended, humiliated, or intimidated? Page 10 of 14 Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 11 of 14 Table 5 Variables associated with sexual harassment within the last 12 months before, during, and after the lockdown period: Poisson regression with robust variance Variables SH12m Lockdown period OR (95% CI) Before During After OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) Sex (male) Female 1.847 (1.537, 2.220) 2.521 (2.192, 2.898) 0.982 (0.696, 1.385) 1.939 (1.441, 2.609) Age (25 years old or younger) Between 25 and 29 years 0.897 (0.791, 1.016) 0.851 (0.736, 0.983) 1.055 (0.790, 1.409) 0.975 (0.799, 1.189) Between 30 and 35 years 0.763 (0.660, 0.882) 0.726 (0.615, 0.857) 0.846 (0.613, 1.168) 0.716 (0.564, 0.908) Country of birth (Spain) Outside Spain 1.149 (0.997, 1.324) 1.117 (0.944, 1.321) 1.301 (0.960, 1.763) 1.094 (0.862, 1.388) Education level (secondary education completed) Higher level education 1.038 (0.921, 1.171) 1.002 (0.888, 1.169) 1.052 (0.808, 1.370) 1.078 (0.887, 1.310) Paid job within the last 12 months (no) Yes 1.357 (1.180, 1.562) 1.492 (1.264, 1.760) 1.302 (0.962, 1.762) 1.272 (1.027, 1.577) Cohabitation with a partner (yes) No 1.343 (1.158, 1.557) 1.280 (1.082, 1.514) 1.417 (1.009, 1.989) 1.654 (1.287, 2.125) Never had a partner 1.557 (1.356, 1.787) 1.488 (1.271, 1.741) 2.147 (1.578, 2.921) 2.207 (1.748, 2.787) Sexual orientation (LGB) Heterosexual 0.570 (0.461, 0.704) 0.719 (0.638, 0.810) 0.376 (0.265, 0.533) 0.462 (0.329, 0.649) Sexual orientation * sex (LGB male) Heterosexual woman 1.356 (1.067, 1.723) 1.971 (1.248, 3.114) 1.766 (1.193, 2.613) Shaded, the 95% credibility interval did not contain the unit (i.e. statistically significant at 95%) and 25.93% for men and women, respectively) to experi- most common negative effects of cyberbullying on LGB ence harassment than participants pertaining to the LGB youth are psychological, emotional and behavioral, caus- community. ing more problems in the sports world due to fear of being bullied and also showing lower academic performance. Discussion Coinciding with the literature (2019 Violence Against The results of our analysis clearly show that SH is a mani- Women Macrosurvey), our study shows that age is also festation of power that primarily disadvantages women, a key factor in the incidence of SH, with the estimated younger individuals, non-heterosexuals, and those with a prevalence being higher among younger individuals com- paid job. pared with older ones, with a prevalence percentage in Our results indicate that women are almost twice as the 18–24 age group twice as high as that observed in the likely as men to experience SH. While men can also be 30–35 age group. subjected to SH, women are more frequently disempow- Employment status is another factor that showcased ered because of a lack of physical and economic strength, these power structures as we found that the likelihood being in more vulnerable and unsafe situations, and suffer- of SH is higher among people who have a paid job com- ing the consequences of a heteropatriarchal education and pared with those who do not. Conversely, no significant cultural system, so the sexual harasser is usually a man and differences were observed among men with respect to the harassed person tends to be a woman [13, 22]. this variable. This finding make it clear that SH is present We observed that, among heterosexual men and in the workplace and that the harasser is often a person women, the estimated prevalence of SH was lower with belonging to the work environment, such as a colleague, respect to that observed among the LGB community, with a boss, or a client ([34]; 2019 Violence Against Women prevalence estimates in the bivariate analysis of 31.5% Macrosurvey). for heterosexuals compared with 53, 39.2, and 34.6% for In a more intimate environment, SH can also take bisexuals, gays, and lesbians, respectively. Other studies place in a relationship context. However, our statistical also suggest that non-heterosexuals experience a higher model yielded higher prevalence estimates for people percentage of harassment behaviors compared with het- who did not cohabitate with a partner or who had never erosexuals [1, 3]. These authors also indicate that the had a partner with respect to those who did. Although Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 12 of 14 harassment within a relationship was normalized for sev- immigrants, or the LGTBI community) suffer more from eral years due to the belief that this was a private matter, this type of harassment [15]. it has repercussions on the victims’ health and an impor- The above is evident in the findings of our study. The tant social impact [12]. Harassment within a relationship most frequently reported SH behaviors before and after the between two young individuals who do not cohabitate lockdown periods were insistent or lascivious looks that or are not married is clearly different to that occurring have made someone feel intimidated (63.4 and 54.4% pre- within the context of a marriage or cohabitating part- lockdown and post-lockdown periods, respectively, ver- ners. First, because of the harassers’ and the victims’ sus 22.9% during the lockdown period) and have received age, which is markedly lower among non-cohabitating sexual jokes or offensive comments about someone’s partners. Secondly, due to factors related to parental, body or private life (39.7 and 34.3% pre-lockdown and contractual, or financial responsibilities in the case of post-lockdown periods, respectively, versus 32.2% during cohabiting couples [30]. Thus, the higher prevalence of the lockdown period). In contrast, during the lockdown SH among individuals without a partner or who do not period, harassment through electronic channels, such as cohabitate with a partner may be explained by their age have received inappropriate, humiliating, intimidating or (which tends to be higher among people with a partner) offensive insinuations on social networks such as Face- or the fact that harassment occurring within a relation- book, Instagram or Twitter (35.1% during the lockdown ship takes on a dimension of sexual violence that is expe- period versus 20.1% both before and after this period) or rienced and reported by the victim as such. have received sexually explicit and inappropriate e-mails, The evolution of the prevalence of SH detected before, WhatsApp messages or text messages that have someone during, and after the lockdown period indicates that this feel offended, humiliated or intimidated (32.6% during the type of harassment, for the most part, takes place outside lockdown period versus 16.5 and 17.8% before and after the home environment: in the work environment, the aca- this period, respectively), was more significant, which demic environment [7, 28] and in public settings (street highlights the fact that the harasser was an acquaintance SH) [35]. Thus, the disappearance of sex, age, and paid who had the harassed person’s contact details. work as variables affecting SH during the lockdown period The results obtained in our analysis are consistent would be explained by the temporary closure of work- with those reported in existing publications in the scien- places, classrooms, and both public (squares, streets, etc.) tific literature but provide new insights into SH regard- and private (bars, restaurants, pubs, etc.) social spaces. ing the use of a mixed sample (comprising both women Although the temporary closure of workplaces and and men). This approach avoids the gender bias affecting classrooms prevented face-to-face harassment, this type many studies including exclusively female samples by jus- of behavior entered the digital environment through tifying that only women suffer this type of harassment. offensive messages, insinuations or proposals, provoca- However, this claim falls apart when considering non- tions, contact attempts using false identities, messages heterosexual men. Our sample design and the breadth of with sexual content or offensive calls being just some of the panel used to extract it allowed us to determine the the SV acts mostly experienced by women and teenagers exposure to SH among young Spaniards. [6]. Sexual cyberstalking is a crime contemplated in the Although much work is being carried out to raise soci- amendment of the 2015 Spanish penal code. Therefore, ety’s awareness of harassment, there is still a long way to go. we are describing acts that have only been criminalized We live in a society that is currently making great progress since very recently. It is important to highlight variables in certain aspects; however, there is still discrimination such as gender, a couple relationship, age, country of based on a person’s gender, sexual orientation, or age sup- birth, and sexual orientation within the context of tech- ported by power relations that fail to respect equal oppor- nological harassment. As in the case of other studies, our tunities. That’s why our results are relevant, because they analysis highlights that women, usually in a stable rela- can help to design preventive policies and programs that tionship [26], are the main victims of these digital aggres- can be applied in adolescents and youth populations to pre- sions (66.7% compared with 33.3% among men) [23]. vent these behaviors in the future. Because the eradication These cyber-aggressions among couples is a subtype of of SH (as well as other types of abuse) will require a cultural phycological aggression that takes place via social media change influencing political, commercial, and educational aimed to threaten, humiliate and control partner behav- formulations throughout different countries to ensure that iour and social relationships [14]. Moreover, as shown equal opportunities are truly given to all people, regardless by our findings, the most vulnerable groups (minors, of their age, race, gender, or religion. Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 13 of 14 Supplementary Information 2. Arthurton K, Frahani ST. SOS-supporting our sisters: narratives from the margins. In: Today’s youth and mental health. Cham: Springer; 2018. p. The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​ 211–29. org/​10.​1186/​s12889-​022-​14264-9. 3. Baiocco R, Pistella J, Salvati M, Salvatore I, Lucidi F. Sports as risk environ‑ ment: homophobia and bullying in a simple of gay and heterosexual Additional file 1: Table S1. Prevalence of SH according to the study men. J Gai Lesbian Ment Health. 2018;22(4):38. covariates of the “Sexual Violence among Young People” survey adminis‑ 4. Bennet ER, Snyder S, Cusano J, McMahon S, Zijdel M, Camerer K, tered to the Spanish population aged 18–35 years. et al. Supporting survivors of campus dating and sexual violence during COVID-19: a social work perspective. Soc Work Health Care. 2021;60(1):106–16. Acknowledgments 5. Brown SJ, Conway LJ, FitzPatrick KM, Hagarty K, Mensah FK, Papado‑ Not applicable. poullos S, et al. Physical and mental health of women exposed to intimate partner violence in the 10 years after having their first child: Authors’ contributions an Australian prospective cohort study of firs-time mothers. BMJ Open. All jointly participated in the study design and decision-making of the analyti‑ 2020;10(12):e040891. cal strategy. CV and BS wrote the introduction. LV, CS, GR and LS did the data 6. Bueno C. Teletrabajo y salud mental: Avances y desafíos más allá de la analysis and interpreted and worked on the results. LV, CS, GR and LS drafted pandemia. Santiago de Chile: Organización Internacional del Trabajo; the article. The rest of the authors contributed significantly to the revision of 2020. the manuscript and the contribution of intellectual content. The discussion 7. Chory RM, Offstein EH. Too close for confort? Facutly-student multiple was done by all the coauthors. The author(s) read and approved the final relationships and their impact on student classroom conduct. Ethnichs manuscript. Behav. 2018;28(1):23–44. 8. Congreso de los Diputados de España (setiembre 6, 2022). Ley orgánica Funding 10/2022 de garantia integral de la libertad sexual. BOE 14630. https://​ This research was supported by the CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health www.​boe.​es/​boe/​dias/​2022/​09/​07/​pdfs/​BOE-A-​2022-​14630.​pdf. of Spain; Grant ESP20PI02. 9. Davis JP, Tucker JS, Dunbar MS, Pedersen ER, d’Amico EJ. Effects of homo‑ phobic name-calling and verbal sexual harassment and substance use Availability of data and materials among young adults. Agress Behav. 2021;47(1):5–16. The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly 10. Edwards KM, Camp EE, Lim S, Logan TK, Shorey RC, Babchuk W. Stalking available because we are still carrying on research papers and the project among sexual and gender minorities: a systematic literature review. is not already finished. However, they are available from the corresponding Agress Violent Behav. 2022;66:101777. author on reasonable request. 11. Fawole OI, Okedare OO, Reed E. Home was not safe haven: women’s experiences of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria. BMC Womens Health. 2021;21(1):32. Declarations 12. Ferrer-Pérez V, Bosch-Fiol E, Sánchez-Prada A, Delgado-Álvarez C. Beliefs and attitudes about intimate partner violence against women in Spain. Ethics approval and consent to participate Psicothema. 2019;31(1):38–45. The project was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of 13. Galdi S, Guizzo F. Media-induced sexual harassment: the routes from Alicante (code UA-2020-07-07) and was carried out in accordance with the sexuality objectifying media to sexual harassment. Sex Roles. 2021;84:1. guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki. All participants were invited by email 14. Gámez-Gaudix M, Borrajo E, Calvete E. Parter abuse, control and violence to complete the survey. Those who accepted, received, by email, an individual through internet and smartphones: characteristics, evaluation and pre‑ link to complete the online survey. Therefore, we asked participants for their vention. Papeles de Psicólogo. 2018;39(3):218–27. consent before their inclusion in the study so that informed consent was 15. Garaigordobil M, Larrain E. Acoso y ciberacoso en adolescentes LGTB: obtained from all subjects. Prevalencia y efectos en la salud mental. Comunicar. 2020;28(62):79–90. 16. García-Moreno C, Hegarty K, d’Oliveira AFL, Koziol-McLain J, Colombini M, Consent for publication Feder G. The health-system response to violence against women. Lancet. Not applicable. 2015;385:1567–79. 17. Gica S, Kaplan B, Atar AT, Gulec MY, Gulec H. Investigation of the effects Competing interests of childhood sexual abuse on disease severity and cognitive functions in The authors declare that they have no competing interests. borderline personality disorder. Dusunen Adam. 2021;34(2):141–50. 18. Holland KJ, Cortina LM, Magley VJ, Baker AL, Benya FF. Don’t let COVID-19 Author details 1 disrupt campus climate surveys of sexual harassment. Proc Natl Acad Sci Research Group on Statistics, Econometrics and Health (GRECS), University U S A. 2020;117(40):24606–8. of Girona, C/ de la Universitat de Girona, 10 17003 Girona, Spain. 2 CIBER 19. Jung S, Faitakis M, Cheema H. A comparative profile of intimate partner of Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain. 3 National School sexual violence. J Sex Aggress. 2021;27(1):95–105. of Health. Institute of Health Carlos III, Madrid, Spain. 4 Department of Com‑ 20. Keith T, Hyslop F, Richmond R. A systematic review of interventions to munity Nursing, Preventive Medicine and Public Health and History of Science, reduce gender-based violence among women and girls in sub-Saharan Alicante University, Alicante, Spain. 5 Public Health Agency of Barcelona, Africa. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2022:Article 15248380211068136. Barcelona, Spain. 6 IIB Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain. 7 Nursing Department. Faculty Advance online publication. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​15248​38021​10681​ of Medicine, Autonoma De Madrid University, Madrid, Spain. 36. 21. Kosterina E, Horne SG, Lamb S. The role of gender-based violence health Received: 24 February 2022 Accepted: 12 September 2022 worries and ambivalent sexism in the development of women’s gyneco‑ logical symptoms. J Heath Psycol. 2021;26(4):567–79. 22. Larrea, M.L., Guarderas, P., Cuvi, J., Paula, C., Almeida, M., Palacios, P., Acosta, D., Gutiérrez, M.J. and Yépez, J. (2020). ¿Cómo se mide el acoso sexual? Aportes para determinar la prevalencia del acoso sexual en las institu‑ References ciones de educación superior. Ed. Abya-Yala. ISBN: 978-9978-10-475-0. 1. Abreu RL, Kenny MC. Cyberbullying and LGBTQ youth: a systematic 23. Marín-Cortés A, Linne J. Una tipología de ciberacoso en jóvenes. Revista literature review and recommendations for prevention and intervention. Mejicana de Sociologia. 2021;83(2). J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2018;11(1):81–97. 24. McLeod DA, Havig K, Natale A, Pharris A. Intimate partner violence: inno‑ vations in theory to inform clinical practice, policy, and research. Soc Sci. 2020;9(5):71. Casanovas et al. BMC Public Health (2022) 22:1888 Page 14 of 14 25. Ménard KS, Nagayama Hall GC, Phung AH, Erian Ghebrial MF, Martin L. Gender differences in sexual harassment and coercion in college stu‑ dents: developmental, individual and situational determinants. J Interpers Violence. 2003;18(10):1222–39. 26. Minaya MA. El impacto de la tecnología digital en las relaciones de pareja. Socialium. 2021;5(1):163–79. 27. Mumford E, Okeke N, Rothman E. Young men’s attitudes and neighbor‑ hood risk factors for sexual harassment perpetration in the United States. J Community Health. 2020;45:245–51. 28. Navarro-Guzman C, Ferrer-Pérez VA, Bosch-Fiol E. El acoso sexual en el ámbito universitario: análisis de una escala de medida. Universitas Psyco‑ logica. 2016;15(2):15–25. 29. Newman C, Nayebare A, Neema S, Agaba A, Akello LP. Uganda’s response to sexual harassment in the public health sector: from “dying silently” to gender-transformational HRH policy. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19(1):1–19. 30. Osorio GM, Villegas AA, Rodríguez VH. Presencia, tipo y nieles de maltrato en el noviazgo en mujeres estudiantes de bachillerato y universidad. Revista Electrónica de Psicología Iztacala. 2016;19(2):569–84. 31. Pathak N, Dhairyawan R, Tarig S. The experience of intimate partner vio‑ lence among older women: a narrative review. Maturitas. 2019;121:63–75. 32. Quick JC, McFadyen M. Sexual harassment: have we made any progress? J Occup Health Psychol. 2017;22(3):286. 33. Raj A, Johns N, Rupa J. Racial/ethnic disparities in sexual harassment in United States, 2018. J Interpers Viol. 2019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​08862​ 60519​842171. 34. Reuter M, Wahrendorf M, Di Tecco C, Probst TM, Chirumbolo A, Ritz- Timme S, et al. Precarious employment and self-reported experiences of unwanted sexual attention and sexual harassment at work. An analysis of the European Working Conditions Survey. Plos One. 2020. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1371/​journ​al.​pone.​02336​83. 35. Rodríguez Y., Martínez, R. and Alonso, R. (2019) Análisis de las experiencias de mi primer acoso sexual callejero. En A. López, E. Aguayo and A. Gómez (Eds). (Re) Construíndo o Coñecemento (págs. 423-432) Universidad da Coruña. 36. Sewell MT. The social impact of facial expressions of shame within the disclosure of sexual assault. Reno: University of Nevada; 2015. 37. Thapalia R, Dhungana RR, Adhikari SK, Pandey AR. Understanding, experi‑ ence and response to sexual harassment among the female students: a mixed method study. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2019;17(4):424–30. 38. Trabold N, McMahon J, Alsobrooks S, Whitney S, Mittal M. A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions: state of the field and implications for practitioners. Trauma Viol Abuse. 2020;21(2):311–25. 39. United Nations. Guidelines for producing statistics on violence against women statistical surveys. ISBN (PDF); 2014. p. 9789210559874. 40. World Health Organization (WHO). Understanding and addressing violence against women. Geneva: WHO; 2012. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub‑ lished maps and institutional affiliations. Ready to submit your research ? Choose BMC and benefit from: • fast, convenient online submission • thorough peer review by experienced researchers in your field • rapid publication on acceptance • support for research data, including large and complex data types • gold Open Access which fosters wider collaboration and increased citations • maximum visibility for your research: over 100M website views per year At BMC, research is always in progress. Learn more biomedcentral.com/submissions