ReviewHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2026
AI-Enabled First-Response Support After Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: A PRISMA-ScR Scoping Review.
Review in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly proposed to augment early-stage assistance for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV), including intimate partner and domestic violence, across crisis hotlines, specialist services, digital reporting channels, legal support tools and healthcare pathways. However, the scope, maturity and evaluative strength of the peer-reviewed evidence remain uncertain. We aimed to map the application domains, evaluative maturity, and implementation and safety gaps of this evidence base.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), using a Population-Concept-Context framework focused on AI-enabled first-response and early support. Searches in Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed were supplemented by targeted searches of IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library. Records were screened against predefined criteria, charted using a structured form and synthesised descriptively.
resultsOriginal searches yielded 187 records and 21 included sources of evidence. The supplementary search identified 539 records/candidates; 27 full texts were assessed and 6 additional sources met eligibility criteria, yielding 27 included sources of evidence. Evidence covered survivor-facing conversational support; screening and triage in emergency and specialist services; social-triage and online disclosure models; survivor-informed help-seeking and chatbot design; legal/support routing; and enabling modalities such as speech-based approaches. Most sources reported technical performance, usability, acceptability or systems-audit findings, while no workflow-integrated evaluation was identified and survivor-centred effectiveness outcomes, service uptake and adverse-event monitoring were rarely reported.
conclusionsThe evidence remains heterogeneous and early-stage, with limited support for service-integrated effectiveness or safety. Included sources more often assessed models, interfaces or prototypes than downstream pathway outcomes. The findings support cautious, pathway-aware interpretation and identify recurring concerns regarding escalation, accountability, equity, digital trace safety and human handover. The proposed practice considerations and outcome domains are author-informed priorities for future pilot and implementation studies, not validated guidelines.
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.