Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35886368›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

From Bystanders to Upstanders: Supporters and Key Informants for Victims of Gender Violence.

Lidia Puigvert, Marta Soler-Gallart, Ana Vidu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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.

Lidia PuigvertDepartment of Sociology, University of Barcelona, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8963-615X
Marta Soler-GallartDepartment of Sociology, University of Barcelona, 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-4494-4508
Ana ViduDepartment of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9844-6809

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Scientific literature has presented relevant evidence about the existence of gender violence in science and has evaluated some programs and actions against this problem. Although many researchers have identified the importance of those intervention programs to overcome this harassment, it is still a predominant reality in institutions, surrounded by the law of silence. Emerging lines of research are studying which of those programs are successful in this endeavor, and their transferability to other contexts. This research has analyzed one program: Programme of Women's Dialogic Action (ProWomenDialogue). To gather evidence for expressing whether or not ProWomenDialogue has an impact, and whether it constitutes a successful action against harassment, the SIOR (Social Impact Open Repository) criteria, emerging from the FP7 IMPACT-Project, have been used for the evaluation of this research's social impact. Drawing on SIOR, ProWomenDialogue shows unprecedented transformations in academia through six lines of action. The political impact led to legislation that made compulsory the creation of equality committees and protocols against sexual harassment. Social impact, aligned with SDG 5, inspires the reduction of GBV, while encouraging the career promotion of female researchers. ProWomenDialogue embodies a Successful Action platform against violence, presenting their features as recommendations to be implemented in other settings.

Indexed as

Gender-Based ViolenceSexual HarassmentFemaleGender IdentityHumansOrganizationsViolencebystandersgender violenceisolating gender violencesocial impactupstanders

Identifiers

PMID35886368
PMCPMC9319615

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.