Schucan Bird Karen L, Stokes Nicola, Rivas Carol
Social Research Institute, University College London London UK.
Formerly SafeLives Bristol UK.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2025 Apr 16;21(2):e70026. doi: 10.1002/cl2.70026. eCollection 2025 Jun.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
家庭暴力与虐待(DVA)是一个重大的全球性问题,需要强有力的多部门应对措施。新冠疫情凸显出,除了正规机构和专业服务之外,非正式和社会网络在应对受害者幸存者方面发挥着关键作用。朋友、亲属、邻居和同事处于独特的位置,能够识别虐待行为,做出回应,并在适当情况下转介至更广泛的服务机构。为了利用这一潜力,世界各地正在开发并实施针对此类非正式支持者的干预措施。然而,人们对此类干预措施知之甚少。通过汇总关于此类项目的研究,本证据与差距图开始推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。这为寻求委托开展或开发该领域干预措施及研究的政策制定者和从业者提供了宝贵的见解,以期促进对家庭暴力的全面、全社会范围的应对。该证据与差距图是学者、专家以及家庭暴力研究人员合作的成果,并得到了一个咨询小组的投入和指导。
本证据与差距图旨在确定关于旨在为家庭暴力受害者幸存者建立或加强非正式支持的干预措施的实证性初步研究的性质和范围,识别可能适合进行综合分析的证据集群,以及研究基础中的差距。
检索了以下书目数据库,以获取从数据库建立至2022年10月31日发表的研究:美国心理学会心理学文摘数据库(APA PsycINFO)、社会政策与实践数据库、应用社会科学索引与摘要数据库(ASSIA)、医学期刊数据库(PubMed)以及社会科学引文索引数据库。识别灰色文献是检索策略的一个重要支柱,因此还检索了主要位于英国的家庭暴力组织的网站。同样,从数据库建立至2023年7月10日,对专业系统评价、政策和家庭暴力数据库进行了有针对性的检索。
证据与差距图关注任何明确旨在为家庭暴力受害者幸存者建立或加强非正式社会支持的干预措施。符合条件的干预措施针对支持提供者(即朋友、亲属、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。纳入所有研究设计,报告针对样本或受害者幸存者(在亲密关系中遭受过虐待的成年人)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。符合条件的研究需以英文发表。
证据与差距图中纳入的所有研究均由两名独立评审员使用专业系统评价软件EPPI Reviewer进行编码。收集了有关研究样本、研究设计、干预措施和结果的详细信息。未进行质量评估。
证据与差距图确定了47项关于旨在为家庭暴力和虐待受害者幸存者建立、加强或促进非正式支持的干预措施的初步研究。绝大多数证据来自全球北方地区,在少量的证据基础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一致。证据与差距图强调了该领域多样化研究设计和灰色文献的重要性。研究主体分布不均衡,研究最集中在针对受害者幸存者的干预措施,如支持小组或辅导,以及针对非正式支持者的干预措施,如教育和培训。大多数研究报告的是成年女性受害者幸存者,特别强调她们的心理健康和幸福,以及她们的求助行为。此类结果的报告与更广泛的服务使用者/提供者的优先事项一致,并突出了家庭暴力研究改善受害者幸存者生活的紧迫性。证据与差距图发现,很少有研究关注针对塑造非正式支持的结构因素的干预措施,如社会关系或社区规范,并且缺乏关于特定人群的数据,包括长期受害者幸存者、少数族裔群体和男性。针对非正式支持者的研究存在重大差距,该群体的数据或结果有限,样本中明显缺少特定类型的非正式支持者(即朋友和家庭成员)。证据与差距图还突出了社区层面结果研究的差距。
据我们所知,本证据与差距图首次对家庭暴力中非正式支持干预措施的证据进行了全面、严谨的概述。该证据与差距图为寻求梳理此类干预措施相关证据的政策制定者、从业者和研究人员提供了一个有价值的工具。虽然证据与差距图提供了世界各地干预措施的部分情况,但这些研究提供了对家庭暴力受害者幸存者非正式支持以及干预潜在效果的见解。证据与差距图涵盖的一系列干预措施可以激励政策制定者将对家庭暴力的应对范围扩大到一线服务之外,确定利益相关者,并委托开展试点研究,以进一步了解非正式支持干预措施。可以通过更多研究来加强证据基础,这些研究考察针对关系和社区以及个人的干预措施,并评估更广泛的人群。与此同时,证据与差距图提供了一些丰富的数据,如受害者幸存者心理健康方面的结果或基于信仰组织的干预措施,可用于为当前和未来的服务提供提供信息。