Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34209746›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Identifying the Impact of Intimate Partner Violence in Humanitarian Settings: Using an Ecological Framework to Review 15 Years of Evidence.

Melissa Meinhart, Ilana Seff, Katrina Troy, Samantha McNelly, Luissa Vahedi, Catherine Poulton, Lindsay Stark

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Melissa MeinhartBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Ilana SeffBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Katrina TroyBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Samantha McNellyBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.
Luissa VahediBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7112-3348
Catherine PoultonUNICEF, United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10017, USA.
Lindsay StarkBrown School of Social Work, Washington University, in St. Louis 1 Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive form of gender-based violence that exacerbates in humanitarian settings. This systematic review examined the myriad IPV impacts and the quality of existing evidence of IPV in humanitarian settings. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) procedures, a total of 51 articles were included from the 3924 screened. We identified the impact of IPV across two levels of the ecological framework: individual and microsystem. Our findings corroborated previous evidence that indicated IPV to be associated with adverse physical and mental health for survivors. Our findings also uniquely synthesized the intergenerational impact of IPV in humanitarian settings. However, findings highlighted a glaring gap in evidence examining the non-health impact of IPV for survivors in humanitarian settings and across levels of the ecological framework. Without enhanced research of women and girls and the violence they experience, humanitarian responses will continue to underachieve, and the needs of women and girls will continue to be relegated as secondary interests. Investment should prioritize addressing the range of both health and non-health impacts of IPV among individuals, families, and communities, as well as consider how the humanitarian environment influences these linkages.

Indexed as

Gender-Based ViolenceIntimate Partner ViolenceFemaleHumansMental HealthSurvivorsViolenceecological frameworksgender-based violencehumanitarian settingsintimate partner violencesystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34209746
PMCPMC8297014

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.