SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2015
Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 108 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
108 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review of qualitative studies exploring how parents affected by intimate partner violence and abuse and their children experience child welfare, health and criminal justice responses.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Patient-clinician communication in longitudinal care settings about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adult traumas: A systematic review of reviews.Patient education and counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of UK-based support interventions and services aimed at adults who have experienced or used domestic and sexual violence and abuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Healthcare Professionals' Own Experiences of Domestic Violence and Abuse: A Meta-Analysis of Prevalence and Systematic Review of Risk Markers and Consequences.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2023Pooled it
- Interventions to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Men Who Use Substances: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2021Pooled it
- Intimate Partner Violence and Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Pooled it
- A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review: Infidelity, Romantic Jealousy and Intimate Partner Violence against Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Pooled it
- Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical guideline for homeless and vulnerably housed people, and people with lived homelessness experience.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2020Guideline
- Interventions for women who report domestic violence during and after pregnancy in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2020Pooled it
- A realist review of which advocacy interventions work for which abused women under what circumstances.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions for reducing and/or controlling domestic violence among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- The associations between intimate partner violence and maternal health care service utilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC women's health · 2019Pooled it
- A culturally-safe primary care intervention for migrant/refugee women suffering domestic violence and abuse: HARMONY-a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.BMC medicine · 2026Trial
- Trial
- Longitudinal effectiveness of a woman-led, nurse delivered health promotion intervention for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: iHEAL randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2024Trial
- Self-efficacy and social support as mediators of mental health among abused women.Nursing & health sciences · 2022Trial
- Women Tell All: A Comparative Thematic Analysis of Women's Perspectives on Two Brief Counseling Interventions for Intimate Partner Violence.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Safe Pregnancy intervention for intimate partner violence: a randomised controlled trial in Norway among culturally diverse pregnant women.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2022Trial
48 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntimate 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.
objectivesTo assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. SEARCH
methodsIn 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. SELECTION CRITERIA: 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). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: 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. MAIN
resultsWe 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. AUTHORS'
conclusionsResults 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.