CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 242Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesElder Abuse and Neglect

The Process Through Which an Advocacy Intervention Resulted in Positive Change for Battered Women Over Time

Bybee, Deborah I., Sullivan, Cris M.·2002·American Journal of Community Psychology
DOI 10.1023/a:1014376202459
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A prior experimental evaluation of a community-based advocacy program for women with abusive partners demonstrated positive change in the lives of women even 2 years postintervention (C M. Sullivan & D. I. Bybee, 1999). The current study explored the complex mediational process through which this change occurred, using longitudinal structural equation modeling and formal tests of mediation. As hypothesized, the advocacy intervention first resulted in women successfully obtaining desired community resources and increasing their social support, which enhanced their overall quality of life. This improvement in well-being appeared to serve as a protective factor from subsequent abuse, as women who received the intervention were significantly less likely to be abused at 2-year follow-up compared with women in the control condition. Increased quality of life completely mediated the impact of the advocacy intervention on later reabuse. Discussion places advocacy for women in the context of other efforts that are needed to build an effective community response to preventing intimate violence against women.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1014376202459

Cites

94 of 94 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?

  • Survivor-focused advocacy/case management interventions showed good to moderate evidence of positive impact on mental health outcomes and access to social support, and in a few studies a reduction in partner aggression or experience of IPV.

    “The studies showed good to moderate evidence of the positive impact of these interventions on mental health outcomes and also access to social support for the IPV survivors included in the study, and in a few studies, a reduction in partner aggression or experience of IPV (IPV scores) [15–23].”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

  • Many of the advocacy/case management interventions described created linkages by assisting IPV survivors identify sources of support within their existing networks and engage in forming new social relationships.

    “Many of the advocacy/case management interventions described above have created these linkages by assisting IPV survivors identify sources of support within their existing networks and also engage in forming new social relationships [16, 18, 48].”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

  • In some studies, dosage of the intervention and participant characteristics like age or ethnicity are often cited as potential moderators of some outcomes.

    “In some of the studies, the ‘dosage of the intervention’, as well as some participant characteristics like age or ethnicity are often cited as potential moderators of some of the outcomes, more research on IPV intervention should examine the time dependent nature of interventions and their effect on outcomes similar to what was done by Bybee et al[16].”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [16]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bybee, D. I., & Sullivan, C. M.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Sullivan, Cris M.
ORCID
Sullivan, Cris M.
Venue
American Journal of Community Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-02
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
103-132
ISSN
  • 0091-0562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2770
DOI
10.1023/a:1014376202459
OpenAlex
W2117687319
Cited by
242
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 11
FWCI
6.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • American Journal of Community Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01mh044849-08)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH44849)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
intimate partner violence, battered women, community-based advocacy, quality of life, social support, community resources, mediation, protective factors
MeSH terms
Consumer Advocacy, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Models, Psychological, Quality of Life, Social Support, United States, Program Evaluation, Women's Health, Negotiating, Domestic Violence, Battered Women

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