Interventions for Improving Informal Social Support for Victim-Survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse: An Evidence and Gap Map

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Karen L. Schucan Bird, Nicola Stokes, Carol Rivas
{"title":"Interventions for Improving Informal Social Support for Victim-Survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse: An Evidence and Gap Map","authors":"Karen L. Schucan Bird,&nbsp;Nicola Stokes,&nbsp;Carol Rivas","doi":"10.1002/cl2.70026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is a significant global problem that warrants a robust, multi-sectoral response. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted that informal and social networks play a critical role in responding to victim-survivors, alongside formal agencies and specialist services. Friends, relatives, neighbours and colleagues are uniquely placed to recognise abuse, respond and refer to wider services, where appropriate. Seeking to harness this potential, interventions tailored towards such informal supporters are being developed and implemented around the world. Yet little is known about such interventions. By pulling together the research on such programmes, this evidence and gap map begins to advance the understanding of informal support interventions, pinpointing the range and type of interventions implemented around the world, and the extent of the available evidence. This provides valuable insights for policy makers and practitioners seeking to commission or develop interventions and research in this area, with a view to facilitating a holistic, societal-wide response to domestic abuse. The evidence and gap map was a collaboration of academics and specialists, as well as domestic abuse researchers, with input and guidance from an Advisory Group.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>This evidence and gap map aims to establish the nature and extent of the empirical primary research on interventions aiming to create or enhance informal support for victim-survivors of domestic abuse, identifying clusters of evidence potentially suitable for synthesis, and gaps in the research base.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Search Methods</h3>\n \n <p>The following bibliographic databases were searched for published studies from inception to 31st October 2022: APA PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, ASSIA, PubMed, and Social Science Citation Index. Identifying grey literature was an important pillar of the search strategy and so websites of domestic abuse organisations, predominantly in the United Kingdom, were also searched. Similarly, a targeted search of specialist systematic review, policy and domestic abuse databases was undertaken from inception to 10th July 2023.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Selection Criteria</h3>\n \n <p>The evidence and gap map focused on any interventions that explicitly aimed to create or enhance informal social support for victim-survivors of domestic abuse. Eligible interventions targeted the providers of the support (i.e., friends, relatives, neighbours or colleagues), the victim-survivor, the relationship between them, and/or the wider community within which the informal support was provided. All study designs were included, reporting qualitative or quantitative data for samples or victim-survivors (adults who were/had been experiencing abuse in an intimate relationship) or informal supporters. Outcomes were not used as part of the eligibility criteria. Eligible studies needed to be published in English.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Data Collection and Analysis</h3>\n \n <p>All studies included in the evidence and gap map were coded by two independent reviewers, using specialist systematic review software EPPI Reviewer. Details were collected about the study sample, study design, intervention and outcomes. Quality appraisal was not undertaken.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Main Results</h3>\n \n <p>The EGM identified 47 primary studies of interventions that aimed to create, enhance or facilitate informal support for victim-survivors of domestic violence and abuse. The overwhelming majority of evidence is drawn from the Global North, and there is dissonance between the small evidence base and the relatively larger number of informal support interventions implemented around the world. The EGM highlights the importance of diverse study designs and grey literature in this field. The body of research is unevenly distributed, with the greatest concentration of studies around interventions directed towards victim-survivors, such as support groups or mentoring, and those tailored towards informal supporters, such as education and training. Most research reported on female, adult victim-survivors with a particular emphasis on their mental health and wellbeing, and their help-seeking behaviours. The reporting of such outcomes aligns with wider service user/provider priorities and highlights the imperative of DVA research to improve the lives of victim-survivors. The EGM found little research focused on interventions targeting structural factors that shape informal support, such as social relationships or community norms, and a lack of data on specific population groups including victim-survivors in the longer term, ethnic minority groups and men. There are major gaps in the research for informal supporters with limited data or outcomes for this group, and specific types of informal supporters (namely friends and family members) are notably absent from samples. The EGM also highlights a gap in the research on community-level outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Authors' Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>To our knowledge, this EGM is the first to provide a comprehensive and rigorous overview of the evidence on informal support interventions in domestic abuse. The EGM provides a valuable tool for policymakers, practitioners and researchers seeking to navigate the evidence around such interventions. Whilst the EGM provides a partial picture of interventions around the world, the studies offer insight into informal support for victim-survivors of DVA and the potential effects of intervening. The suite of interventions covered by the EGM can inspire policymakers to broaden the response to domestic abuse beyond frontline services, identify stakeholders and commission pilot studies to further understanding of informal support interventions. The evidence base can be strengthened with additional studies examining interventions that target relationships and communities, as well as individuals, and assessing a wider range of population groups. At the same time, the EGM offers pockets of rich data, such as outcomes on victim-survivor mental health or interventions in faith-based organisations, which can be utilised to inform current and future service provision.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"21 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cl2.70026","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.70026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Domestic Violence and Abuse (DVA) is a significant global problem that warrants a robust, multi-sectoral response. The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted that informal and social networks play a critical role in responding to victim-survivors, alongside formal agencies and specialist services. Friends, relatives, neighbours and colleagues are uniquely placed to recognise abuse, respond and refer to wider services, where appropriate. Seeking to harness this potential, interventions tailored towards such informal supporters are being developed and implemented around the world. Yet little is known about such interventions. By pulling together the research on such programmes, this evidence and gap map begins to advance the understanding of informal support interventions, pinpointing the range and type of interventions implemented around the world, and the extent of the available evidence. This provides valuable insights for policy makers and practitioners seeking to commission or develop interventions and research in this area, with a view to facilitating a holistic, societal-wide response to domestic abuse. The evidence and gap map was a collaboration of academics and specialists, as well as domestic abuse researchers, with input and guidance from an Advisory Group.

Objectives

This evidence and gap map aims to establish the nature and extent of the empirical primary research on interventions aiming to create or enhance informal support for victim-survivors of domestic abuse, identifying clusters of evidence potentially suitable for synthesis, and gaps in the research base.

Search Methods

The following bibliographic databases were searched for published studies from inception to 31st October 2022: APA PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, ASSIA, PubMed, and Social Science Citation Index. Identifying grey literature was an important pillar of the search strategy and so websites of domestic abuse organisations, predominantly in the United Kingdom, were also searched. Similarly, a targeted search of specialist systematic review, policy and domestic abuse databases was undertaken from inception to 10th July 2023.

Selection Criteria

The evidence and gap map focused on any interventions that explicitly aimed to create or enhance informal social support for victim-survivors of domestic abuse. Eligible interventions targeted the providers of the support (i.e., friends, relatives, neighbours or colleagues), the victim-survivor, the relationship between them, and/or the wider community within which the informal support was provided. All study designs were included, reporting qualitative or quantitative data for samples or victim-survivors (adults who were/had been experiencing abuse in an intimate relationship) or informal supporters. Outcomes were not used as part of the eligibility criteria. Eligible studies needed to be published in English.

Data Collection and Analysis

All studies included in the evidence and gap map were coded by two independent reviewers, using specialist systematic review software EPPI Reviewer. Details were collected about the study sample, study design, intervention and outcomes. Quality appraisal was not undertaken.

Main Results

The EGM identified 47 primary studies of interventions that aimed to create, enhance or facilitate informal support for victim-survivors of domestic violence and abuse. The overwhelming majority of evidence is drawn from the Global North, and there is dissonance between the small evidence base and the relatively larger number of informal support interventions implemented around the world. The EGM highlights the importance of diverse study designs and grey literature in this field. The body of research is unevenly distributed, with the greatest concentration of studies around interventions directed towards victim-survivors, such as support groups or mentoring, and those tailored towards informal supporters, such as education and training. Most research reported on female, adult victim-survivors with a particular emphasis on their mental health and wellbeing, and their help-seeking behaviours. The reporting of such outcomes aligns with wider service user/provider priorities and highlights the imperative of DVA research to improve the lives of victim-survivors. The EGM found little research focused on interventions targeting structural factors that shape informal support, such as social relationships or community norms, and a lack of data on specific population groups including victim-survivors in the longer term, ethnic minority groups and men. There are major gaps in the research for informal supporters with limited data or outcomes for this group, and specific types of informal supporters (namely friends and family members) are notably absent from samples. The EGM also highlights a gap in the research on community-level outcomes.

Authors' Conclusions

To our knowledge, this EGM is the first to provide a comprehensive and rigorous overview of the evidence on informal support interventions in domestic abuse. The EGM provides a valuable tool for policymakers, practitioners and researchers seeking to navigate the evidence around such interventions. Whilst the EGM provides a partial picture of interventions around the world, the studies offer insight into informal support for victim-survivors of DVA and the potential effects of intervening. The suite of interventions covered by the EGM can inspire policymakers to broaden the response to domestic abuse beyond frontline services, identify stakeholders and commission pilot studies to further understanding of informal support interventions. The evidence base can be strengthened with additional studies examining interventions that target relationships and communities, as well as individuals, and assessing a wider range of population groups. At the same time, the EGM offers pockets of rich data, such as outcomes on victim-survivor mental health or interventions in faith-based organisations, which can be utilised to inform current and future service provision.

Abstract Image

改善对家庭暴力和虐待受害者-幸存者的非正式社会支持的干预措施:证据和差距图
家庭暴力和虐待是一个重大的全球性问题,需要采取强有力的多部门应对措施。2019冠状病毒病大流行突出表明,在应对受害者和幸存者方面,非正式网络和社交网络与正式机构和专业服务一起发挥着关键作用。朋友、亲戚、邻居和同事在识别虐待、做出回应和在适当情况下提供更广泛的服务方面处于独特的地位。为了利用这一潜力,世界各地正在制定和实施针对这些非正式支持者的干预措施。然而,人们对此类干预知之甚少。通过汇集对此类规划的研究,这张证据和差距图开始增进对非正式支持干预措施的理解,明确世界各地实施的干预措施的范围和类型,以及现有证据的程度。这为寻求在这一领域委托或开展干预和研究的政策制定者和从业者提供了宝贵的见解,以期促进对家庭虐待作出全面的全社会反应。证据和差距图是学者和专家以及家庭虐待研究人员在咨询小组的投入和指导下合作完成的。本证据和差距图旨在确定旨在建立或加强对家庭虐待受害者-幸存者的非正式支持的干预措施的实证初步研究的性质和范围,确定可能适合综合的证据集群,以及研究基础中的差距。从成立到2022年10月31日,检索了以下书目数据库:APA PsycINFO,社会政策与实践,ASSIA, PubMed和社会科学引文索引。识别灰色文献是搜索策略的重要支柱,因此也搜索了家庭虐待组织的网站,主要是在英国。同样,从启动到2023年7月10日,对专家系统审查、政策和家庭虐待数据库进行了有针对性的搜索。证据和差距图集中于任何明确旨在为家庭虐待受害者-幸存者创造或加强非正式社会支持的干预措施。合格的干预措施针对的是支持提供者(即朋友、亲戚、邻居或同事)、受害者-幸存者、他们之间的关系和/或提供非正式支持的更广泛社区。所有的研究设计都包括在内,报告了样本或受害者-幸存者(在亲密关系中遭受虐待的成年人)或非正式支持者的定性或定量数据。结果不作为入选标准的一部分。符合条件的研究需要用英文发表。所有纳入证据和差距图的研究均由两名独立的审稿人使用专业的系统评价软件EPPI Reviewer进行编码。收集了研究样本、研究设计、干预措施和结果的详细信息。没有进行质量评价。特别评估确定了47项干预措施的初步研究,旨在为家庭暴力和虐待的受害者-幸存者创造、加强或促进非正式支持。绝大多数证据来自全球北方,证据基础小,与世界各地实施的相对较多的非正式支持干预措施之间存在不协调。EGM强调了该领域多样化研究设计和灰色文献的重要性。研究主体分布不均,最集中的研究是针对受害者-幸存者的干预措施,如支持小组或指导,以及针对非正式支持者的干预措施,如教育和培训。大多数研究报告的对象是成年女性受害者-幸存者,特别强调她们的心理健康和福祉,以及她们寻求帮助的行为。这些结果的报告与更广泛的服务用户/提供者优先事项保持一致,并突出了DVA研究对改善受害者-幸存者生活的必要性。 EGM发现,很少有研究关注针对影响非正式支持的结构性因素的干预措施,如社会关系或社区规范,以及缺乏关于特定人口群体的数据,包括长期受害者-幸存者、少数民族群体和男性。对非正式支持者的研究存在重大差距,这一群体的数据或结果有限,特定类型的非正式支持者(即朋友和家庭成员)在样本中明显缺失。特别评估还强调了在社区一级成果研究方面的差距。据我们所知,本EGM是第一个对家庭虐待中非正式支持干预的证据进行全面和严格概述的研究。EGM为政策制定者、从业者和研究人员提供了一个有价值的工具,帮助他们找到围绕此类干预措施的证据。虽然EGM提供了世界各地干预措施的部分图景,但这些研究提供了对DVA受害者-幸存者的非正式支持以及干预的潜在影响的见解。EGM涵盖的一系列干预措施可以激励政策制定者将家庭虐待的应对措施扩大到一线服务之外,确定利益相关者,并开展试点研究,以进一步了解非正式支持干预措施。通过进一步研究以关系和社区以及个人为目标的干预措施,并评估更广泛的人口群体,可以加强证据基础。同时,EGM提供了一些丰富的数据,例如受害者-幸存者心理健康的结果或基于信仰的组织的干预措施,这些数据可以用来为当前和未来的服务提供提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信