Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27626038›Full record

ArticleViolence and gender2016

Modifiers of Neighbors' Bystander Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence: A Concept Mapping Study.

Sara Wee, Mary-Justine Todd, Michael Oshiro, Emily Greene, Victoria Frye

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Violence and gender, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Last mile research: a conceptual map.Global health action · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara WeeDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.; Center for Survivor Agency and Justice, Washington, District of Columbia.
Mary-Justine ToddWomen's Crisis Care International, Bahrain, Jordan.; Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Center, New York, New York.
Michael OshiroDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University , New York, New York.
Emily GreeneLindsley F. Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Center, New York, New York.; Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Victoria FryeDepartment of Sociomedical Sciences, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.; Lindsley F. Kimball Research Institute, New York Blood Center, New York, New York.; Department of Community Health and Social Medicine, Sophie Davis School of Biomedical Education, City College of New York, City University of New York, New York, New York.
Columbia University · USInternational Hospital of Bahrain · BH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Encouraging bystander intervention in intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is potentially an important method of reducing the prevalence of such violence in urban communities. Most existing research has been conducted on campuses and in relation to sexual violence among teens or young adults. Our understanding of which bystander behaviors are feasible is nascent, and our knowledge of which situational factors influence neighbors' self-reported willingness to intervene is underdeveloped. We conducted a concept mapping study to identify potential bystander intervention behaviors in IPV among neighbors in urban settings; we also assessed whether perceived feasibility and effectiveness of those behaviors varied by situational characteristics. Using data collected from 41 residents of a low-income New York City neighborhood in late 2011, concept mapping was used to create a conceptual map of the 74 behaviors identified by participants. We examined participant differences in mean feasibility (i.e., that the participants "could" or "would" enact a behavior), feasibility given two situational characteristics (if the couple was perceived to have a history of IPV, and if children were believed to be involved or present), and perceived effectiveness of bystander behaviors. Differences across select sociodemographic factors of participants were also analyzed. A 13-cluster solution emerged, with clusters of bystander behaviors grouped into four larger cluster areas: victim focused, parenting/education focused, perpetrator focused, and community involvement focused. Bivariate analyses revealed that participants rated the four cluster areas as more feasible when a child was believed to be involved. Male participants rated intervention as less feasible when the couple was believed to have a history of IPV. Participants who reported a history of IPV victimization rated all four cluster areas as less effective on average, as compared with participants without a history of IPV. This study explored bystander intervention into IPV outside of a college context and among urban adults living in high-poverty areas. Results suggest that the presence of children and perceived history of IPV may affect bystander intervention. Specific recommendations to build the research base on bystander intervention in adult IPV as well as what situational, sociodemographic, and other factors mitigate against intervention among potential responders are offered.

Identifiers

PMID27626038
PMCPMC4997712
OpenAlexW2336446788

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.