让家庭暴力从业人员和幸存者参与审查成果工具-对不同优先事项的反思

Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, M. Kimber, Lucy Downes, G. Feder, E. Fulton, Emma Howarth, Kate Johns, Ursula Lindenberg, A. d’Oliveira, A. Shaheen, C. Vindrola‐Padros, C. Powell
{"title":"让家庭暴力从业人员和幸存者参与审查成果工具-对不同优先事项的反思","authors":"Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, M. Kimber, Lucy Downes, G. Feder, E. Fulton, Emma Howarth, Kate Johns, Ursula Lindenberg, A. d’Oliveira, A. Shaheen, C. Vindrola‐Padros, C. Powell","doi":"10.14324/rfa.07.1.06","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nResearchers often develop and decide upon the measurement tools for assessing outcomes related to domestic abuse interventions. However, it is known that clients, service providers and researchers have different ideas about the outcomes that should be measured as markers of success. Evidence from non-domestic abuse sectors indicates that engagement of service providers, clients and researchers contributes to more robust research, policy and practice. We reflect on what we have learnt from the engagement of practitioners and domestic abuse survivors in a review of domestic abuse measurement tools where there were clear differences in priorities between survivors, practitioners and researchers about the ideal measurement tools. The purpose of this reflective article is to support the improvement of future outcome measurement from domestic abuse interventions, while ensuring that domestic abuse survivors do not relive trauma because of measurement.","PeriodicalId":165758,"journal":{"name":"Research for All","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Engaging domestic abuse practitioners and survivors in a review of outcome tools – reflections on differing priorities\",\"authors\":\"Sigrún Eyrúnardóttir Clark, M. Kimber, Lucy Downes, G. Feder, E. Fulton, Emma Howarth, Kate Johns, Ursula Lindenberg, A. d’Oliveira, A. Shaheen, C. Vindrola‐Padros, C. Powell\",\"doi\":\"10.14324/rfa.07.1.06\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nResearchers often develop and decide upon the measurement tools for assessing outcomes related to domestic abuse interventions. However, it is known that clients, service providers and researchers have different ideas about the outcomes that should be measured as markers of success. Evidence from non-domestic abuse sectors indicates that engagement of service providers, clients and researchers contributes to more robust research, policy and practice. We reflect on what we have learnt from the engagement of practitioners and domestic abuse survivors in a review of domestic abuse measurement tools where there were clear differences in priorities between survivors, practitioners and researchers about the ideal measurement tools. The purpose of this reflective article is to support the improvement of future outcome measurement from domestic abuse interventions, while ensuring that domestic abuse survivors do not relive trauma because of measurement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":165758,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research for All\",\"volume\":\"75 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research for All\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.07.1.06\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research for All","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14324/rfa.07.1.06","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究人员经常开发和决定测量工具,以评估与家庭暴力干预有关的结果。然而,众所周知,客户、服务提供者和研究人员对应该作为成功标志的结果有不同的看法。来自非家庭虐待部门的证据表明,服务提供者、客户和研究人员的参与有助于更有力的研究、政策和实践。在对家庭暴力测量工具的回顾中,我们反思了从从业人员和家庭暴力幸存者的参与中学到的东西,其中幸存者、从业人员和研究人员对理想测量工具的优先级存在明显差异。这篇反思性文章的目的是支持改进家庭暴力干预措施的未来结果测量,同时确保家庭暴力幸存者不会因为测量而再次遭受创伤。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Engaging domestic abuse practitioners and survivors in a review of outcome tools – reflections on differing priorities
Researchers often develop and decide upon the measurement tools for assessing outcomes related to domestic abuse interventions. However, it is known that clients, service providers and researchers have different ideas about the outcomes that should be measured as markers of success. Evidence from non-domestic abuse sectors indicates that engagement of service providers, clients and researchers contributes to more robust research, policy and practice. We reflect on what we have learnt from the engagement of practitioners and domestic abuse survivors in a review of domestic abuse measurement tools where there were clear differences in priorities between survivors, practitioners and researchers about the ideal measurement tools. The purpose of this reflective article is to support the improvement of future outcome measurement from domestic abuse interventions, while ensuring that domestic abuse survivors do not relive trauma because of measurement.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信