↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005043.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

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. To assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. 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. 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). 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. 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. Incidence of abuse Physical abuseModerate quality pooled data from two healthcare studies (moderate risk of bias) and one community study (low risk of bias), all with 12-month follow-up data, showed no effect on physical abuse for brief (< 12 hours) advocacy interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.17 to 0.16; n = 558). One antenatal study (low risk of bias) showed an association between brief advocacy and reduced minor physical abuse at one year (mean difference (MD) change - 1.00, 95% CI - 1.82 to - 0.18; n = 110). An antenatal, multi-component study showed a greater likelihood of physical abuse ending (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75) immediately after advocacy (number needed to treat (NNT) = 8); we cannot exclude impact from other components.Low to very low quality evidence from two intensive advocacy trials (12 hours plus duration) showed reduced severe physical abuse in women leaving a shelter at 24 months (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.77; NNT = 8), but not at 12 or 36 months. Sexual abuseMeta-analysis of two studies (n = 239) showed no effect of advocacy on sexual abuse (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.37 to 0.14), agreeing with the change score (MD - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.16) from a third study and the OR (0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12) from a fourth antenatal, multi-component study. Emotional abuseOne study in antenatal care, rated at low risk of bias, showed reduced emotional abuse at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD (change score) - 4.24, 95% CI - 6.42 to - 2.06; n = 110). Psychosocial health Quality of lifeMeta-analysis of two studies (high risk of bias) showed intensive advocacy slightly improved overall quality of life of women recruited from shelters (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46; n = 343) at 12-month follow-up, with greater improvement in perceived physical quality of life from a primary care study (high risk of bias; MD 4.90, 95% CI 0.98 to 8.82) immediately postintervention. Depression Meta-analysis of two studies in healthcare settings, one at high risk of bias and one at moderate risk, showed that fewer women developed depression (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65; n = 149; NNT = 4) with brief advocacy. One study at high risk of bias reported a slight reduction in depression in pregnant women immediately after the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.29; n = 103; NNT = 8).There was no evidence that intensive advocacy reduced depression at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.33 to 0.05; 3 studies; n = 446) or at two years (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.36 to 0.12; 1 study; n = 265). Adverse effectsTwo women died, one who was murdered by her partner and one who committed suicide. No evidence links either death to study participation. Results suggest some benefits from advocacy. However, most studies were underpowered. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity largely precluded pooling of trials. Therefore, there is uncertainty about the magnitude of benefit, the impact of abuse severity, and the setting.Based on the evidence reviewed, intensive advocacy may improve short-term quality of life and reduce physical abuse one to two years after the intervention for women recruited from domestic violence shelters or refuges. Brief advocacy may provide small short-term mental health benefits and reduce abuse, particularly in pregnant women and for less severe abuse.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 476 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 126 26%
Unspecified 65 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 64 13%
Researcher 63 13%
Student > Bachelor 51 10%
Other 119 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 141 29%
Psychology 89 18%
Unspecified 80 16%
Social Sciences 65 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 58 12%
Other 55 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 November 2016.
All research outputs
#509,195
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,661
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,545
of 345,394 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#58
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,394 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.