Responding to Domestic Violence and Abuse during COVID-19 through Remote Interventions: An Evaluation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) Service

Aim: To explore the perspectives of patients/service users receiving specialist domestic violence and abuse (DVA) support from the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) service during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Design: A qualitative approach was used to conduct this study. Methods: Thematic analysis of data collected via in-depth individual interviews with 11 patients/service users who received DVA support following their disclosure of abuse to a health-care professional in general practice (GP) and subsequent referral to the IRIS service. Findings: Six themes were identified-experience of DVA during COVID-19; awareness of the IRIS service; pathway to care; accessibility, safety, and remote consultations; adequacy of telephone support; and impact of IRIS support. Participants reported feeling supported by the GP team and the DVA specialists from the IRIS service. Conclusion: The pandemic had a significant impact on health care and specialist DVA service providers. The swift shift to remote consultations proved to be an effective way to identify DVA, determine the support needs of those experiencing DVA from their own perspective, and make appropriate referrals for specialist support. Further research is needed to understand the views of health-care professionals and those working in the IRIS service to explore factors affecting their ability to provide remote services. The study highlighted the need for health-care professionals other than doctors (including nurses, midwives, and others) to build knowledge, confidence, and competence in asking about DVA.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives

BACKGROUND

Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW.

METHODS

We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW.

RESULTS

We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research.

CONCLUSIONS

The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Psychological advocacy towards healing (PATH): A randomized controlled trial of a psychological intervention in a domestic violence service setting

BACKGROUND

Experience of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is associated with mental illness. Advocacy has little effect on mental health outcomes of female DVA survivors and there is uncertainty about the effectiveness of psychological interventions for this population.

OBJECTIVE

To test effectiveness of a psychological intervention delivered by advocates to DVA survivors.

DESIGN, MASKING, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Pragmatic parallel group individually randomized controlled trial of normal DVA advocacy vs. advocacy + psychological intervention. Statistician and researchers blinded to group assignment. Setting: specialist DVA agencies; two UK cities. Participants: Women aged 16 years and older accessing DVA services.

INTERVENTION

Eight specialist psychological advocacy (SPA) sessions with two follow up sessions.

MEASUREMENTS

Primary outcomes at 12 months: depression symptoms (PHQ-9) and psychological distress (CORE-OM). Primary analysis: intention to treat linear (logistic) regression model for continuous (binary) outcomes.

RESULTS

263 women recruited (78 in shelter/refuge, 185 in community), 2 withdrew (1 community, control group; 1 intervention, refuge group), 1 was excluded from the study for protocol violation (community, control group), 130 in intervention and 130 in control groups. Recruitment ended June 2013. 12-month follow up: 64%. At 12-month follow up greater improvement in mental health of women in the intervention group. Difference in average CORE-OM score between intervention and control groups: -3.3 points (95% CI -5.5 to -1.2). Difference in average PHQ-9 score between intervention and control group: -2.2 (95% CI -4.1 to -0.3). At 12 months, 35% of the intervention group and 55% of the control group were above the CORE-OM -2clinical threshold (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.64); 29% of the intervention group and 46% of the control group were above the PHQ-9 clinical threshold (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81).

LIMITATIONS

64% retention at 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

An eight-session psychological intervention delivered by DVA advocates produced clinically relevant improvement in mental health outcomes compared with normal advocacy care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN registry ISRCTN58561170 Original Research 3675/3750.