Cited by 92Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

An online healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid for women experiencing intimate partner violence (I-DECIDE): a randomised controlled trial

Open access
Hegarty, Kelsey, Tarzia, Laura, Valpied, Jodie, Murray, Elizabeth, Humphreys, Cathy, Taft, Angela, Novy, Kitty, Gold, Lisa +1 more·2019·The Lancet Public Health

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence for online interventions to help women experiencing intimate partner violence is scarce. We assessed whether an online interactive healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid (I-DECIDE) would increase women's self-efficacy and improve depressive symptoms compared with an intimate partner violence information website. METHODS: In this two-group pragmatic randomised controlled trial, we enrolled women who had screened positive for any form of intimate partner violence or fear of a partner in the 6 months before recruitment. Women aged 16-50 years currently residing in Australia, who had safe access to a computer and an internet connection, and who answered positively to one of the screening questions in English were eligible for inclusion. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to receive either the intervention or control website. The intervention website consisted of modules on healthy relationships, abuse and safety, and relationship priority setting, and a tailored action plan. The control website was a static intimate partner violence information website. As the initial portion of the website containing the baseline questions was identical for both groups, there was no way for women to tell which group they had been allocated to, and the research team were also masked to participant allocation until after analysis of the 12-month data. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after completion of the website, at 6 months, and 12 months. Primary outcomes were mean general self-efficacy score (immediately after website completion, and at 6 months and 12 months) and mean depression score (at 6 months and 12 months). Data analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles, accounting for missing data, and adjusted for outcome baseline scores. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN 12614001306606. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, and Aug 28, 2015, 584 patients registered for the study and were assessed for eligibility. 422 eligible participants were randomly allocated to the intervention group (227 patients) or control group (195 patients). 179 (79%) participants in the intervention group and 156 (80%) participants in the control group completed 12-month follow-up. Mean self-efficacy at 6 months and 12 months was lower for participants in the intervention group than for participants in the control group, although this did not meet the prespecified mean difference (6 months: 27·5 [SD 5·1] vs 28·1 [4·4], imputed mean difference 1·3 [95% CI 0·3 to 2·3]; 12 months: 27·8 [SD 5·4] vs 29·0 [5·0], imputed mean difference 1·6 [95% CI 0·5 to 2·7]). We found no difference between groups in depressive symptoms at 6 months or 12 months (6 months: 22·5 [SD 17·1] vs 24·2 [17·2], imputed mean difference -0·3 [95% CI -3·5 to 3·0]; 12 months: 21·9 [SD 19·3] vs 21·5 [19·3], imputed mean difference -1·9 [95% CI -5·6 to 1·7]). Qualitative findings indicated that participants found the intervention supportive and a motivation for action. INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight the need for further research, development, and refinement of online interventions for women experiencing intimate partner violence, particularly into the duration needed for interventions. Although we detected no meaningful differences between groups, our qualitative results indicated that some women find an online tool a helpful source of motivation and support. FUNDING: Australian Research Council.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s2468-2667(19)30079-9

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 32 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Lock J. The development of the Consequences of Screening Tool and the psychometric assessment of three woman abuse measures [thesis]. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008.
  2. Department of Primary Industries and Energy, Department of Human Services and Health. Rural, remote and metropolitan areas classification. 1991 census edition. November 1991. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1994.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hegarty, K., Tarzia, L., Valpied, J., Murray, E., Humphreys, C., Taft, A., Novy, K., Gold, L., & Glass, N.
Affiliations
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • University College London (GB)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Hegarty, Kelsey
Venue
The Lancet Public Health
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
4
Issue
6
Pages
e301-e310
ISSN
2468-2667 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2947143301
Cited by
92
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7
FWCI
11.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Australian Research Council (DP130102799)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
intimate partner violence, online intervention, healthy relationships, self-efficacy, depressive symptoms, women, fear of partner, domestic violence prevention, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands, Pacific Islander women, indigenous women, culturally tailored interventions
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Internet-Based Intervention, Adolescent, Adult, Australia, Decision Support Techniques, Depression, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Safety, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

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