CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 124Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

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

Ramsay, Jean, Carter, Yvonne, Davidson, Leslie, Dunne, Danielle, Eldridge, Sandra, Hegarty, Kelsey, Rivas, Carol, Taft, Angela +2 more·2009·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005043.pub2
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner abuse is common in all societies and damages the health of survivors and their children in the short and long term. Advocacy may decrease the impact of this abuse on women's health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advocacy interventions conducted within or outside of health care settings on women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: CENTRAL and DARE (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to 31/7/08), EMBASE (1980 to 2008 week 30), and 11 other databases, to end July 2008. We also searched relevant websites, reference lists and forward citation tracking of included studies, and handsearched six key journals. We contacted principal investigators and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse against usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes we calculated a standardised estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and for continuous data we calculated either a standardised mean difference (SMD) or a weighted mean difference (WMD), both with a 95% confidence interval. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten trials involving 1527 participants. The studies were heterogeneous in respect of: intensity of advocacy, outcome measures and duration of follow-up (immediately post-intervention to three years), permitting meta-analysis for only a minority of outcomes. Intensive advocacy (12 hours or more duration) may help terminate physical abuse in women leaving domestic violence shelters or refuges at 12-24 months follow-up (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80), but not at up to 12 months follow-up. The evidence indicates that intensive advocacy may improve quality of life at up to 12 months follow-up, but the confidence intervals included zero (WMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46). Depression did not improve following intensive advocacy at up to 12 months follow-up (WMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09), nor did psychological distress (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06). Only two meta-analyses of brief advocacy interventions (less than 12 hours duration) were possible; an increased use of safety behaviours was consistent with the receipt of brief advocacy both at up to 12 months (WMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.06) and at 12-24 months (WMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92) follow up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence reviewed, it is possible that intensive advocacy for women recruited in domestic violence shelters or refuges reduces physical abuse one to two years after the intervention but we do not know if it has a beneficial effect on their quality of life and mental health. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence to show if less intensive interventions in healthcare settings for women who still live with the perpetrators of violence are effective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd005043.pub2

Cites

87 of 87 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ramsay, J., Carter, Y., Davidson, L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Hegarty, K., Rivas, C., Taft, A., Warburton, A., & Feder, G.
Affiliations
  • University of London (GB)
  • University of Warwick (GB)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Published
2009-07-08
Issue
3
Pages
CD005043-CD005043
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/14651858.cd005043.pub2
OpenAlex
W4210959368
Cited by
120
References
87
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 20 · 2012: 12
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Update notices
new_version (2015-12-03)
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (RP-PG-0609-10181)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, advocacy interventions, women's health, women's shelters, refuge, physical abuse, psychosocial well-being, quality of life, depression, psychological distress, healthcare settings, violence against women, intimate partner homicide
MeSH terms
Counseling, Female, Humans, Quality of Life, Safety, Social Welfare, Social Work, Spouse Abuse, Time Factors, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review