↓ Skip to main content

Effectiveness of secondary and tertiary prevention for violence against women in low and low-middle income countries: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
269 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Effectiveness of secondary and tertiary prevention for violence against women in low and low-middle income countries: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Public Health, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4502-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy Kirk, Samantha Terry, Kamalini Lokuge, Jessica L. Watterson

Abstract

Violence against women (VAW) is a major problem worldwide, with one in three women experiencing violence in their lifetime. While interventions to prevent violence (primary prevention) are extremely important, they can take many years. This review focuses on secondary and tertiary prevention interventions that address the needs of survivors of violence and aim to prevent recurrence. This review also focuses on studies taking place in low and low-middle income countries, where rates of VAW are highest. Searches of peer-reviewed and grey literature took place from March-June 2016 through databases (Embase, CINAHL, WHO Global Index Medicus, Medline, PsychINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Sociological Abstracts) and by consulting experts in the field. Only primary research was eligible for inclusion and studies had to focus on secondary or tertiary prevention for survivors of VAW in low or low-middle income countries. All study designs were eligible, as long as the study examined client-related outcome measures (e.g., incidence of violence, health outcomes or client satisfaction). Data were extracted and quality of the studies was assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies and a qualitative quality assessment tool developed by Mays and Pope. Due to the low number of results and heterogeneity of the study populations and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was conducted and evidence was summarized. One thousand two hundred fifteen studies were identified through the search strategy and 22 of these met the eligibility criteria. Overall, the evidence for interventions is weak and study limitations prevent definitive conclusions on what works. There is some evidence that interventions targeting alcohol use, both among perpetrators and survivors, may be effective at reducing VAW through secondary prevention, and that psychotherapy might be effective for survivors of non-partner sexual violence through tertiary prevention. Finally, some evidence exists for crisis centres increasing survivors' access to services (through both secondary and tertiary prevention), however, assessment of their impact on future VAW are needed. Though some interventions for survivors of VAW have shown evidence of effectiveness, further research is needed, especially high-quality studies with quantitative outcome data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 269 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 269 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 37 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 12%
Researcher 26 10%
Student > Bachelor 23 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 7%
Other 40 15%
Unknown 91 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 40 15%
Social Sciences 40 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 11%
Psychology 28 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Other 24 9%
Unknown 103 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 April 2019.
All research outputs
#2,728,102
of 22,985,065 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#3,124
of 14,971 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,362
of 313,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#62
of 233 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,985,065 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,971 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 233 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.