Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35100320›Full record

ArticlePloS one2022

A scoping review of measurement of violence against women and disability.

Sarah R Meyer, Heidi Stöckl, Cecilia Vorfeld, Kaloyan Kamenov, Claudia García-Moreno

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. A Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Intimate Partner Violence Measures in Health Research.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Disability-Related Disparities in Screening for Intimate Partner Violence During the Perinatal Period: A Population-Based Study.Women's health issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health
    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.

Sarah R MeyerDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-8595-2358
Heidi StöcklThe Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0907-8483
Cecilia VorfeldDepartment of Noncommunicable Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kaloyan KamenovDepartment of Noncommunicable Diseases, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Claudia García-MorenoDepartment of Sexual and Reproductive Health and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionExisting evidence indicates that prevalence of violence against women with disability is elevated compared to women without disability. We conducted a scoping review with a focus on measurement to assess the forms of measurement and study design utilized to explore the intersection of violence against women with disabilities, and to identify strengths and limitations in current approaches to measuring violence against women with disabilities. This scoping review is designed to inform current debates and discussions regarding how to generate evidence concerning violence against women with disabilities. METHODS AND

resultsWe conducted systematic searches of the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, PILOTS, ERIC, Social Work Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, ProQuest Criminal Justice, and Dissertations & Theses Global, and conducted structured searches of national statistics and surveys and grey literature available on-line. We identified 174 manuscripts or reports for inclusion. n = 113 manuscripts or reports utilized acts-specific measurement of violence. In terms of measurement of disability, we found that amongst the included manuscripts and reports, n = 75 utilized measures of functioning limitations (n = 20 of these were Washington Group questions), n = 15 utilized a single question approach and n = 67 defined participants in the research as having a disability based on a diagnosis or self-report of a health condition or impairment. DISCUSSION: This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of measurement of violence against women with disabilities and measurement of violence within disability-focused research. We identified several important gaps in the evidence, including lack of sex and disability disaggregation, limited evidence concerning adaptation of data collection methods to ensure accessibility of research activities for women with disabilities, and limited evidence concerning differential relationships between types of disability and violence exposure. This scoping review provides directions for sub-analyses of the included studies and further research to address gaps in evidence.

Indexed as

Persons with DisabilitiesViolenceFemaleHumansPrevalence

Identifiers

PMID35100320
PMCPMC8803172

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.