Take, for example, a service provision context. One form of harm is psychological: discomfort, or even re-traumatization. A survivor may accept some level of discomfort in disclosing their experience of SGBV to a service provider because that discomfort feels outweighed by the benefits they expect to receive from that interaction—perhaps speaking of SGBV despite personal discomfort will enable the survivor to access urgently needed healthcare or shelter. A survivor’s ‘harm calculus’ may be influenced by their motivation to disclose SGBV: there is a perceived benefit. And even in these situations, service providers who offer a direct benefit should still take precautions to avoid ‘doing harm.’ In sitting with a survivor, they are often able to build rapport, pick up on nuance, use familiar terms, read through the lines to understand discomfort and fear. The existence of discomfort and fear does not mean one must avoid the conversation—there is often, after all, a benefit the survivor seeks. Using best practices including active listening, trauma-informed care, and effective referral mechanisms, service providers can minimize psychological harm in their interactions with survivors of SGBV.

Harm can of course also be more tangible. Survivors who reveal their experiences may be abandoned by spouses, rejected from communities, punished for (being forced into) sexual relations outside of marriage. They may be threatened with retaliation. They may lose their jobs. To understand the barriers to, and consequences of, disclosing SGBV requires contextual knowledge of a society, culture, or space. Many service providers, if from the local community themselves, already have an understanding of these forces. Awareness of these risks requires them to engage in additional layers of precaution: ensure confidentiality, be able to provide or refer a survivor to protection or shelter.