Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37650242›Full record

ArticleTrauma, violence & abuse2024

Bystander Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence: A Scoping Review of Experiences and Outcomes.

Ella Kuskoff, Cameron Parsell

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Ella KuskoffThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4124-6755
Cameron ParsellThe University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Governments across the globe are increasingly implementing policies that encourage bystanders to prevent intimate partner violence (IPV) by intervening in violent or potentially violent situations. While a wealth of research examines the most effective mechanisms for increasing potential bystanders' feelings of self-efficacy and rates of intervention, there is significantly less evidence demonstrating how effective bystander intervention is at preventing or interrupting IPV. This article thus presents a scoping review of the literature examining the experiences and outcomes of bystander intervention in IPV. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines, six databases were searched for relevant peer-reviewed studies published in English between 2001 and 2021. A total of 13 articles were ultimately included in the review. The review highlights that although current knowledge on the topic is highly limited, the combined findings of the studies indicate that immediate responses to bystander intervention are heavily context dependent: victims (and perpetrators) tend to react differently to bystander intervention depending on the type of intervention, the type of violence being used, and their relationship to the bystander. However, we have little to no understanding of the outcomes of bystander intervention, or how these outcomes might vary across different contexts. We argue that a more comprehensive understanding of the immediate and long-term implications of bystander intervention across different contexts is crucial if we are to maximize the effectiveness and minimize the potential for harm resulting from bystander interventions in IPV.

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolenceCrime VictimsFemaleHumansMalebystander interventionexperiencesintimate partner violenceoutcomesscoping review

Identifiers

PMID37650242
PMCPMC11155209

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.