Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,310

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Perceptions and Experiences of Research Participants on Gender-Based Violence Community Based Survey: Implications for Ethical Guidelines

Open access
Sikweyiya, Yandisa, Jewkes, Rachel·2012·PLoS ONE

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore how survey respondents perceived their experiences and the impact of participating in a survey, and to assess adverse consequences resulting from participation. DESIGN: Qualitative study involving purposefully selected participants who had participated in a household-based survey. METHODS: This qualitative study was nested within a survey that investigated the prevalence of gender-based violence perpetration and victimization with adult men and women in South Africa. 13 male- and 10 female-in-depth interviews were conducted with survey respondents. RESULTS: A majority of informants, without gender-differences, perceived the survey interview as a rare opportunity to share their adverse and or personal experiences in a 'safe' space. Gender-differences were noted in reporting perceptions of risks involved with survey participation. Some women remained fearful after completing the survey, that should breach of confidentiality or full survey content disclosure occur, they may be victimized by partners as a punishment for survey participation without men's approval. A number of informants generally discussed their survey participation with others. However, among women with interpersonal violence history or currently in abusive relationships, full survey content disclosure was done with fear; the partner responses were negative, and few women reported receiving threatening remarks but none reported being assaulted. In contrast no man reported adverse reaction by others. Informants with major life adversities reported that the survey had made them to relive the experiences causing them sadness and pain at the time. No informant perceived the survey as emotionally harmful or needed professional support because of survey questions. Rather the vast majority perceived benefit from survey participation. CONCLUSION: Whilst no informant felt answering the survey questions had caused them emotional or physical harm, some were distressed and anxious, albeit temporarily. Research protocols need to put in place safeguards where appropriate so that this group receives support and protection.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0035495

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 1,310

Metadata

Authors
Sikweyiya, Y., & Jewkes, R.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2012-04-27
Volume
7
Issue
4
Pages
e35495
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1967448179
Cited by
1,310
References
29
FWCI
47.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Perceptions and Experiences of Research Participants on Gender-Based Violence Community Based Survey: Implications for Ethical Guidelines. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0035495
The paper
Sikweyiya, Y., & Jewkes, R. (2012). Perceptions and Experiences of Research Participants on Gender-Based Violence Community Based Survey: Implications for Ethical Guidelines. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035495

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.