Front. Psychiatry Frontiers in Psychiatry Front. Psychiatry 1664-0640 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1408862 Psychiatry Correction Corrigendum: Individuals under voluntary treatment with sexual interest in minors: what risk do they pose? von Franqué Fritjof 1 * Bergner-Koether Ralf 2 3 Schmidt Stefanie 1 Pellowski Jan S. 1 Peters Jan H. 4 Hajak Göran 2 Briken Peer 1 1 Institute for Sex Research, Sexual Medicine and Forensic Psychiatry, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany 2 Department for Sexual Medicine, Sozialstiftung Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany 3 Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany 4 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany

Edited and Reviewed by: Birgit Angela Völlm, University of Rostock, Germany

*Correspondence: Fritjof von Franqué, f.von-franque@uke.de

26 04 2024 2024 15 1408862 28 03 2024 09 04 2024 Copyright © 2024 von Franqué, Bergner-Koether, Schmidt, Pellowski, Peters, Hajak and Briken 2024 von Franqué, Bergner-Koether, Schmidt, Pellowski, Peters, Hajak and Briken

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Individuals under voluntary treatment with sexual interest in minors: what risk do they pose? von Franqué F, Bergner-Koether R, Schmidt S, Pellowski JS, Peters JH, Hajak G and Briken P (2023) Front. Psychiatry. 14:1277225. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2023.1277225 child sexual abuse child pornography Dunkelfeld do not offend not become an offender kein täter werden CPORT section-in-acceptance Forensic Psychiatry

In the published article, there was an error in 1 Introduction, Paragraph 3. We cited an author who felt misinterpreted by our presentation. The sentence previously stated:

“In addition, it was argued that a great deal of money was being invested in a group of people who might not pose any substantial risk for reoffending (12).”

The corrected text appears below:

“In addition, König (2015, p.119, translated from the original German work) (9) argued: ‘Instead of expanding primary preventive services, the effectiveness of which has yet to be proven in terms of child and youth protection, it would make sense from a forensic perspective to expand the outpatient psychotherapeutic care situation for men who have been convicted of sexual offenses against minors and have received court orders for therapy, for example. This is a group of offenders who have already proven their dangerousness and, in accordance with the risk-needs-responsivity principle, have a particular need for help.’”

In the published article there was an error in 4 Discussion, Paragraph 2. We erroneously cited a personal communication and three references. The sentence previously stated:

“However, critics might argue that resources for treatment should be based on the potential for re-offending and not solely on past offending behaviors, implying that many individuals in the prevention project would not offend a second time [H.-L. Kröber, personal communication, January 9th, 2015; (9, 10, 12)].”

The corrected sentence appears below:

“However, critics might argue that resources for treatment should be based on the potential for re-offending and not solely on past offending behaviors, implying that many individuals in the prevention project would not offend a second time.”

In the published article there was a rounding error in a Table 2 . In the row Total (n = 165), 9 out of 165 people are incorrectly reported as 6%. The correct relative frequency is 5%. The corrected Table 2 appears below:

Frequencies (percent within group) of child sexual abuse (CSA) during time at risk, differentiated by detection of CSA offending in history.

CSA in history No offence (n = 107) 1 (1%)
Undetected CSA (n = 46) 8 (17%)
Detected CSA (n = 12) 0 (0%)
Total (n=165) 9 (5%)

The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.