ArticleTrauma, violence & abuse2024
Bystander Intervention in Intimate Partner Violence: A Scoping Review of Experiences and Outcomes.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bystanders Responses in Cases of Violence Against Women: Categories and Gender Differences.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Bystanders' Intention to Intervene in a Street Harassment Scenario: The Effects of Personal and Situational Factors.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration and PrEP Use Among Sexual Minority Men: The Mediating Roles of Internalized Homonegativity and PrEP Stigma.AIDS and behavior · 2025Article
- Overcoming Sexual Harassment at University: The Case of the Training Intervention in the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Justice in Health? Studying the Role of Legal Support in a Culturally Responsive Mental Health Service in Australia.Qualitative health research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.