{"title":"在低资源环境和难民人口中使用数字技术预防和应对性别暴力的定性调查。","authors":"Luissa Vahedi, Lindsay Stark, Rachel Ding, Caroline Masboungi, Dorcas Erskine, Catherine Poulton, Ilana Seff","doi":"10.1080/20008066.2024.2347106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Governmental and non-governmental organizations across medical, legal, and psychosocial sectors providing care to survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) and their families rapidly digitalized services during the COVID-19 pandemic. GBV prevention/response services working with women and children who are forcibly displaced and/or living in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) were no exception to the rapid digitalization trend. Literature is lacking a critical synthesis of best practices and lessons learned since digitalization replaced major operations involved in GBV prevention/response.<b>Objective:</b> This research qualitatively investigated how GBV service providers, located in a range of socio-political settings, navigated the process of digitalizing GBV prevention/response during the COVID-19 crisis.<b>Method:</b> Semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with GBV service providers in varied sectors were implemented virtually (2020-2021) in Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, and Italy (regarding forcibly displaced women/girls for the latter). Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Interview guides covered a range of topics: perceived changes in violence and service provision, experiences with virtual services, system coordination, and challenges. The KIIs were conducted in Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, and Italian. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. The research team conducted thematic analysis within and between countries using a structured codebook of data driven and theory driven codes.<b>Results:</b> Major themes concerned the: (1) spectrum of services that were digitalized during the COVID-19 crisis; (2) gender digital divide as a barrier to equitable, safe, and effective service digitalization; (3) digital violence as an unintended consequence of increased digitalization across social/public services.<b>Conclusion:</b> Digitalization is a balancing act with respect to (1) the variety of remotely-delivered services that are possible and (2) the access/safety considerations related to the gender digital divide and digital violence.</p>","PeriodicalId":12055,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","volume":"15 1","pages":"2347106"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11085956/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A qualitative investigation of gender-based violence prevention and response using digital technologies in low resource settings and refugee populations.\",\"authors\":\"Luissa Vahedi, Lindsay Stark, Rachel Ding, Caroline Masboungi, Dorcas Erskine, Catherine Poulton, Ilana Seff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/20008066.2024.2347106\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Governmental and non-governmental organizations across medical, legal, and psychosocial sectors providing care to survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) and their families rapidly digitalized services during the COVID-19 pandemic. GBV prevention/response services working with women and children who are forcibly displaced and/or living in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) were no exception to the rapid digitalization trend. Literature is lacking a critical synthesis of best practices and lessons learned since digitalization replaced major operations involved in GBV prevention/response.<b>Objective:</b> This research qualitatively investigated how GBV service providers, located in a range of socio-political settings, navigated the process of digitalizing GBV prevention/response during the COVID-19 crisis.<b>Method:</b> Semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with GBV service providers in varied sectors were implemented virtually (2020-2021) in Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, and Italy (regarding forcibly displaced women/girls for the latter). Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Interview guides covered a range of topics: perceived changes in violence and service provision, experiences with virtual services, system coordination, and challenges. The KIIs were conducted in Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, and Italian. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. The research team conducted thematic analysis within and between countries using a structured codebook of data driven and theory driven codes.<b>Results:</b> Major themes concerned the: (1) spectrum of services that were digitalized during the COVID-19 crisis; (2) gender digital divide as a barrier to equitable, safe, and effective service digitalization; (3) digital violence as an unintended consequence of increased digitalization across social/public services.<b>Conclusion:</b> Digitalization is a balancing act with respect to (1) the variety of remotely-delivered services that are possible and (2) the access/safety considerations related to the gender digital divide and digital violence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12055,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Psychotraumatology\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"2347106\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11085956/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Psychotraumatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2347106\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychotraumatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20008066.2024.2347106","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A qualitative investigation of gender-based violence prevention and response using digital technologies in low resource settings and refugee populations.
Background: Governmental and non-governmental organizations across medical, legal, and psychosocial sectors providing care to survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) and their families rapidly digitalized services during the COVID-19 pandemic. GBV prevention/response services working with women and children who are forcibly displaced and/or living in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) were no exception to the rapid digitalization trend. Literature is lacking a critical synthesis of best practices and lessons learned since digitalization replaced major operations involved in GBV prevention/response.Objective: This research qualitatively investigated how GBV service providers, located in a range of socio-political settings, navigated the process of digitalizing GBV prevention/response during the COVID-19 crisis.Method: Semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with GBV service providers in varied sectors were implemented virtually (2020-2021) in Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, and Italy (regarding forcibly displaced women/girls for the latter). Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Interview guides covered a range of topics: perceived changes in violence and service provision, experiences with virtual services, system coordination, and challenges. The KIIs were conducted in Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, and Italian. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. The research team conducted thematic analysis within and between countries using a structured codebook of data driven and theory driven codes.Results: Major themes concerned the: (1) spectrum of services that were digitalized during the COVID-19 crisis; (2) gender digital divide as a barrier to equitable, safe, and effective service digitalization; (3) digital violence as an unintended consequence of increased digitalization across social/public services.Conclusion: Digitalization is a balancing act with respect to (1) the variety of remotely-delivered services that are possible and (2) the access/safety considerations related to the gender digital divide and digital violence.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) is a peer-reviewed open access interdisciplinary journal owned by the European Society of Traumatic Stress Studies (ESTSS). The European Journal of Psychotraumatology (EJPT) aims to engage scholars, clinicians and researchers in the vital issues of how to understand, prevent and treat the consequences of stress and trauma, including but not limited to, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depressive disorders, substance abuse, burnout, and neurobiological or physical consequences, using the latest research or clinical experience in these areas. The journal shares ESTSS’ mission to advance and disseminate scientific knowledge about traumatic stress. Papers may address individual events, repeated or chronic (complex) trauma, large scale disasters, or violence. Being open access, the European Journal of Psychotraumatology is also evidence of ESTSS’ stand on free accessibility of research publications to a wider community via the web. The European Journal of Psychotraumatology seeks to attract contributions from academics and practitioners from diverse professional backgrounds, including, but not restricted to, those in mental health, social sciences, and health and welfare services. Contributions from outside Europe are welcome. The journal welcomes original basic and clinical research articles that consolidate and expand the theoretical and professional basis of the field of traumatic stress; Review articles including meta-analyses; short communications presenting new ideas or early-stage promising research; study protocols that describe proposed or ongoing research; case reports examining a single individual or event in a real‑life context; clinical practice papers sharing experience from the clinic; letters to the Editor debating articles already published in the Journal; inaugural Lectures; conference abstracts and book reviews. Both quantitative and qualitative research is welcome.