↓ Skip to main content

Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
5 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
314 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
Systematic review of structural interventions for intimate partner violence in low- and middle-income countries: organizing evidence for prevention
Published in
BMC Public Health, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-2460-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Bourey, Whitney Williams, Erin Elizabeth Bernstein, Rob Stephenson

Abstract

Despite growing attention to intimate partner violence (IPV) globally, systematic evaluation of evidence for IPV prevention remains limited. This particularly is true in relation to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), where researchers often organize evidence by current interventions strategies rather than comprehensive models of IPV. Applying the concept of structural interventions to IPV, we systematically reviewed the quantitative impact of such interventions for prevention of male-to-female IPV in LMIC in order to (a) highlight current opportunities for IPV research and programming and (b) demonstrate how structural interventions may provide an organizing framework through which to build an evidence base for IPV prevention. We identified articles by systematically searching PubMed and Web of Science, reviewing references of selected studies, and contacting 23 experts. Inclusion criteria included original research, written in English, published between January 2000 and May 2015 in the peer-reviewed literature. Studies evaluated the quantitative impact of structural interventions for the prevention of male-to-female IPV in LMIC through (a) IPV incidence or prevalence or (b) secondary outcomes theoretically linked to IPV by study authors. After initial screening, we evaluated full text articles for inclusion and extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias, using forms developed for the review. Twenty articles (16 studies) from nine countries met inclusion criteria, representing 13 randomized control trials and seven additional studies, all of which reported results from economic, social, or combined economic and social interventions. Standardized at p < 0.05 or 95 % confidence intervals not including unity, 13 studies demonstrated statistically significant effects for at least one primary or secondary outcome, including decreased IPV and controlling behaviors; improved economic wellbeing; enhanced relationship quality, empowerment, or social capital; reduced acceptability of IPV; new help seeking behaviors; and more equitable gender norms. Risk of bias, however, varied in meaningful ways. Our findings support the potential effectiveness of structural interventions for IPV prevention. Structural interventions, as an organizing framework, may advance IPV prevention by consolidating available evidence; highlighting opportunities to assess a broader range of interventions, including politico-legal and physical approaches; and emphasizing opportunities to improve evaluation of such interventions.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 314 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%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 311 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 67 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 16%
Researcher 47 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 23 7%
Student > Bachelor 18 6%
Other 53 17%
Unknown 56 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 65 21%
Psychology 49 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 46 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 40 13%
Engineering 8 3%
Other 33 11%
Unknown 73 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 61. 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 19 October 2020.
All research outputs
#421,839
of 17,464,602 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#365
of 11,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,811
of 373,533 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#39
of 1,127 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,464,602 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 373,533 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1,127 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.