ArticleBMJ global health2021
Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety.
Article in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological and Ethical Implications of Using Remote Data Collection Tools to Measure Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender-Based Violence Outcomes among Women and Girls in Humanitarian and Fragile Settings: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Research.Trauma, violence & abuse · 2023Pooled it
- Ntombi Vimbela! Sexual violence risk reduction intervention: pre and one-year post assessments from a single arm pilot feasibility study among female students in South Africa.BMC public health · 2023Trial
- Reflections on the process, challenges, and lessons learned conducting remote qualitative research on Violence against women during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown in South Africa.BMC public health · 2024Article
- A qualitative investigation of gender-based violence prevention and response using digital technologies in low resource settings and refugee populations.European journal of psychotraumatology · 2024Article
- Digital self-help for people experiencing intimate partner violence: a qualitative study on user experiences and needs including people with lived experiences and services providers.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Ethical reporting of research on violence against women and children: a review of current practice and recommendations for future guidelines.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Recommendations for Canada's National Action Plan to End Gender-Based Violence: perspectives from leaders, service providers and survivors in Canada's largest city during the COVID-19 pandemic.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2023Article
- Remote methods for research on violence against women and children: lessons and challenges from research during the COVID-19 pandemic.BMJ global health · 2022Article
- Impact of a Maternal Motivational Interviewing on Oral Health in the Mother-Child Dyad.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although programmes and policies targeting violence against women and girls (VAWG) have increased in the past decade, there is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. To expand this evidence base, researchers increasingly employ remote data collection (RDC)-including online surveys, mobile applications and telephone interviews-in their evaluations. Although RDC allows for evaluations without in-person interactions-which are restricted during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic- information about these methods is necessary to understand their potential usefulness and limitations. This scoping review examines remote evaluations of VAWG interventions to describe the landscape of RDC methods, reflect on safety and ethical considerations, and offer best practices for RDC in VAWG research. Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria, with seven, five, and two studies employing telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, respectively. Studies commonly stated that participants were asked to use a safe email or device, but the method for verifying such safety was rarely specified. Best practices around safety included creating a 'quick escape' button for online data collection to use when another individual was present, explaining to participants how to erase browsing history and application purchases, and asking participants to specify a safe time for researchers to call. Only eight studies established referral pathways for respondents as per best practice. None of the eligible studies took place in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) or humanitarian settings, likely reflecting the additional challenges to using RDC methods in lower resource settings. Findings were used to create a best practice checklist for programme evaluators and Institutional Review Boards using RDC for VAWG interventions. The authors found that opportunities exist for researchers to safely and effectively use RDC methodologies to gather VAWG data, but that further study is needed to gauge the feasibility of these methods in LMICs and humanitarian settings.
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.