↓ Skip to main content

Mechanisms underpinning interventions to reduce sexual violence in armed conflict: A realist-informed systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Conflict and Health, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Readers on

mendeley
126 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Mechanisms underpinning interventions to reduce sexual violence in armed conflict: A realist-informed systematic review
Published in
Conflict and Health, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13031-015-0047-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jo Spangaro, Chinelo Adogu, Anthony B. Zwi, Geetha Ranmuthugala, Gawaine Powell Davies

Abstract

Sexual violence is recognised as a widespread consequence of armed conflict and other humanitarian crises. The limited evidence in literature on interventions in this field suggests a need for alternatives to traditional review methods, particularly given the challenges of undertaking research in conflict and crisis settings. This study employed a realist review of the literature on interventions with the aim of identifying the mechanisms at work across the range of types of intervention. The realist approach is an exploratory and theory-driven review method. It is well suited to complex interventions as it takes into account contextual factors to identify mechanisms that contribute to outcomes. The limited data available indicate that there are few deterrents to sexual violence in crises. Four main mechanisms appear to contribute to effective interventions: increasing the risk to offenders of being detected; building community engagement; ensuring community members are aware of available help for and responses to sexual violence; and safe and anonymous systems for reporting and seeking help. These mechanisms appeared to contribute to outcomes in multiple-component interventions, as well as those relating to gathering firewood, codes of conduct for personnel and legal interventions. Drawing on pre-existing capacity or culture in communities is an additional mechanism which should be explored. Though increasing the risk to offenders of being detected was assumed to be a central mechanism in deterring sexual violence, the evidence suggests that this mechanism operated only in interventions focused on gathering firewood and providing alternative fuels. The other three mechanisms appeared important to the likelihood of an intervention being successful, particularly when operating simultaneously. In a field where robust outcome research remains likely to be limited, realist methods provide opportunities to understand existing evidence. Our analysis identifies the important potential of building in mechanisms involving community engagement, awareness of responses and safe reporting provisions into the range of types of intervention for sexual violence in crises.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 126 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 124 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 23%
Researcher 16 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 8%
Other 6 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 31 25%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Psychology 7 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 37 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 04 April 2017.
All research outputs
#7,406,122
of 22,816,807 outputs
Outputs from Conflict and Health
#464
of 573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,182
of 262,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Conflict and Health
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,816,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 262,601 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.