Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32337076›Full record

SynthesisBMJ global health2020

The implementation and effectiveness of the one stop centre model for intimate partner and sexual violence in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review of barriers and enablers.

Rose McKeon Olson, Claudia García-Moreno, Manuela Colombini

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Interventions addressing violence against women in health services: An overview of systematic reviews regarding barriers and facilitators to implementation.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Addressing sexual violence: A FIGO Committee on Women Facing Crises consensus statement.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Survivor Expectations and Experiences of One-Stop Crisis Centres in Bangladesh: A Qualitative Study of Health System Responsiveness to Gender-Based Violence.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Journal of family violence · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Rose McKeon OlsonDepartment of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6448-9517
Claudia García-MorenoDepartment of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.
Manuela ColombiniDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Many low- and middle-income countries have implemented health-system based one stop centres to respond to intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual violence. Despite its growing popularity in low- and middle-income countries and among donors, no studies have systematically reviewed the one stop centre. Using a thematic synthesis approach, this systematic review aims to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of the one stop centre (OSC) model and to achieving its intended results for women survivors of violence in low- and middle-income countries. Methods: We searched PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases and grey literature using a predetermined search strategy to identify all relevant qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies. Overall, 42 studies were included from 24 low- and middle-income countries. We used a three-stage thematic synthesis methodology to synthesise the qualitative evidence, and we used the CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research) approach to assess confidence in the qualitative research. Meta-analysis could not be performed due heterogeneity in results and outcome measures. Quantitative data are presented by individual study characteristics and outcomes, and key findings are incorporated into the qualitative thematic framework. Results: The review found 15 barriers with high-confidence evidence and identified seven enablers with moderate-confidence evidence. These include barriers to implementation such as lack of multisectoral staff and private consultation space as well as barriers to achieving the intended result of multisectoral coordination due to fragmented services and unclear responsibilities of implementing partners. There were also differences between enablers and barriers of various OSC models such as the hospital-based OSC, the stand-alone OSC and the NGO-run OSC. Conclusion: This review demonstrates that there are several barriers that have often prevented the OSC model from being implemented as designed and achieving the intended result of providing high quality, accessible, acceptable, multisectoral care. Existing OSCs will likely require strategic investment to address these specific barriers before they can achieve their ultimate goal of reducing survivor retraumatisation when seeking care. More rigorous and systematic evaluation of the OSC model is needed to better understand whether the OSC model of care is improving support for survivors of IPV and sexual violence.The systematic review protocol was registered and is available online (PROSPERO: CRD42018083988).

Indexed as

Developing CountriesSex OffensesFemaleHumansIncomeQualitative ResearchSurveys and Questionnaireshealth services researchpublic healthsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32337076
PMCPMC7170420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.