The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse

Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse
Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse
Background: intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others.

Objectives: to assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse.

Search methods: in April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field.

Selection criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it).

Data collection and analysis: two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events.

Main results: we included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.

The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy.

Risk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy.
1469-493X
1-110
Rivas, Carol
040bfbc1-0aef-4826-ab58-e85743fea9d4
Ramsay, Jean
f38c9bad-5bf8-46d6-ba22-1d0aba7f1b59
Sadowski, Laura
0891021d-eeea-41ad-ad49-071293bfdce6
Davidson, Leslie L
75b97e5e-7599-4770-a16e-52b22a843e75
Dunne, Danielle
bf0be4d5-5080-4886-b530-1d81c352c4b5
Eldridge, Sandra
0df61b1d-95f5-4108-a6a8-91a81afddbe9
Hegarty, Kelsey
04707a09-431a-4cd4-9d19-983b384facac
Taft, Angela
498a2ae7-ed79-4442-a06a-3c77b0251ca4
Feder, Gene
0fba983e-5a70-4280-99af-69811d2d6a56
Rivas, Carol
040bfbc1-0aef-4826-ab58-e85743fea9d4
Ramsay, Jean
f38c9bad-5bf8-46d6-ba22-1d0aba7f1b59
Sadowski, Laura
0891021d-eeea-41ad-ad49-071293bfdce6
Davidson, Leslie L
75b97e5e-7599-4770-a16e-52b22a843e75
Dunne, Danielle
bf0be4d5-5080-4886-b530-1d81c352c4b5
Eldridge, Sandra
0df61b1d-95f5-4108-a6a8-91a81afddbe9
Hegarty, Kelsey
04707a09-431a-4cd4-9d19-983b384facac
Taft, Angela
498a2ae7-ed79-4442-a06a-3c77b0251ca4
Feder, Gene
0fba983e-5a70-4280-99af-69811d2d6a56

Rivas, Carol, Ramsay, Jean, Sadowski, Laura, Davidson, Leslie L, Dunne, Danielle, Eldridge, Sandra, Hegarty, Kelsey, Taft, Angela and Feder, Gene (2015) Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 12 (CD005043), 1-110. (doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub3). (PMID:26632986)

Record type: Article

Abstract

Background: intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others.

Objectives: to assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse.

Search methods: in April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field.

Selection criteria: randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it).

Data collection and analysis: two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events.

Main results: we included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.

The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy.

Risk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy.

Text
Advocacy.pdf - Accepted Manuscript
Restricted to Repository staff only
Request a copy
Text
pdf - Version of Record
Download (10kB)

More information

Published date: 3 December 2015
Organisations: Faculty of Medicine

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 386214
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/386214
ISSN: 1469-493X
PURE UUID: e9168818-1174-483d-99ce-e43121979cca

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 Jan 2016 11:32
Last modified: 09 Dec 2019 19:46

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Carol Rivas
Author: Jean Ramsay
Author: Laura Sadowski
Author: Leslie L Davidson
Author: Danielle Dunne
Author: Sandra Eldridge
Author: Kelsey Hegarty
Author: Angela Taft
Author: Gene Feder

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×