Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39995073›Full record

ArticleTrauma, violence & abuse2026

Complexity Science in Domestic Abuse Literature: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Sarah Blake, James Nobles

Erratum issuedAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Trauma, violence & abuse, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Sarah BlakeThe University of Bristol, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6344-1634
James NoblesLeeds Beckett University, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8574-4153

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Complexity science is an interdisciplinary paradigm that helps people understand how outcomes, such as domestic violence and abuse (DVA), arise from within complex adaptive systems. This study aims to identify how complexity science has been applied in DVA literature. A systematic scoping review was conducted, searching across academic databases and Google for articles. Articles published from 1990 to 2020, written in English, had DVA partner abuse as a focus, and used complexity science as a focus or theoretical background to the paper, were considered for inclusion. Data was extracted and narratively synthesized in an iterative manner. Twenty-one studies were included, originating predominantly from the United States and New Zealand, and published mainly after 2009. Approximately 70% of authorships were comprised of interdisciplinary teams. Most papers strongly incorporated complexity science as a methodological approach and applied methods, such as systems modeling (agent-based modeling or systems dynamics modeling), aligning with computer science or engineering disciplines. Some used complexity theory combined with qualitative techniques (interviews or discourse analysis) strongly associated with social sciences research. Methods and findings were heterogeneous and often explored interactions between parts of the system and the subsequent phenomena that emerged from these interactions. Complexity science can: (a) support a holistic understanding of DVA; (b) combine different perspectives; (c) encourage interdisciplinary teams to work collaboratively around an issue such as DVA; (d) identify leverage points to assist in targeting scarce resources; (e) help predict emergent phenomena and unexpected consequences of policy change.

Indexed as

Domestic ViolenceFemaleHumansIntimate Partner Violencecomplex adaptive systemscomplex and wicked problemscomplexity sciencecomplexity theorydomestic violence and abuseholistic approachesinterdisciplinary researchintimate partner violencescoping reviewsystems science

Identifiers

PMID39995073
PMCPMC12953660

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.