ArticleJournal of family violence2026
A Qualitative Exploratory Case Study of the
Article in Journal of family violence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a pervasive public health issue, leading to heightened rates of morbidity and mortality. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the Safe Doors, Safe Homes (SDSH) structural safety intervention in Canada, which seeks to enhance the safety of female IPV survivors within their homes. Methods: Adhering to exploratory case study methodology, this research triangulated responses from three participant groups: female IPV survivors ( Results: Content analyses of interviews identified barriers and facilitators for implementation, including (but not limited to): safety risks, challenges with temporary housing, intervention discretion, maintenance, the intervention's ability to reduce safety risks, its potential flexibility, and the availability of funding. Process considerations for implementing the SDSH intervention in Canada were described. Overall, most participants deemed the intervention necessary, with a small number of police officers also describing home relocation as a reasonable strategy for preventing revictimization. Conclusions: This study provides insights into potential barriers and facilitators for implementing the SDSH intervention in the Canadian context. This knowledge is pivotal for informing adaptations that align with survivors' unique needs, ensuring the success and safety of ongoing IPV prevention efforts. These findings establish a foundation for advancing the SDSH intervention conceptually and practically, offering valuable considerations for refining IPV interventions on practical and systemic levels.
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.