Cargando…

Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety

Although programmes and policies targeting violence against women and girls (VAWG) have increased in the past decade, there is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. To expand this evidence base, researchers increasingly employ remote data collection (RDC)—including onlin...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Seff, Ilana, Vahedi, Luissa, McNelly, Samantha, Kormawa, Elfriede, Stark, Lindsay
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8422319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34489330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006780
_version_ 1783749262108000256
author Seff, Ilana
Vahedi, Luissa
McNelly, Samantha
Kormawa, Elfriede
Stark, Lindsay
author_facet Seff, Ilana
Vahedi, Luissa
McNelly, Samantha
Kormawa, Elfriede
Stark, Lindsay
author_sort Seff, Ilana
collection PubMed
description Although programmes and policies targeting violence against women and girls (VAWG) have increased in the past decade, there is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. To expand this evidence base, researchers increasingly employ remote data collection (RDC)—including online surveys, mobile applications and telephone interviews—in their evaluations. Although RDC allows for evaluations without in-person interactions—which are restricted during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic— information about these methods is necessary to understand their potential usefulness and limitations. This scoping review examines remote evaluations of VAWG interventions to describe the landscape of RDC methods, reflect on safety and ethical considerations, and offer best practices for RDC in VAWG research. Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria, with seven, five, and two studies employing telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, respectively. Studies commonly stated that participants were asked to use a safe email or device, but the method for verifying such safety was rarely specified. Best practices around safety included creating a ‘quick escape’ button for online data collection to use when another individual was present, explaining to participants how to erase browsing history and application purchases, and asking participants to specify a safe time for researchers to call. Only eight studies established referral pathways for respondents as per best practice. None of the eligible studies took place in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) or humanitarian settings, likely reflecting the additional challenges to using RDC methods in lower resource settings. Findings were used to create a best practice checklist for programme evaluators and Institutional Review Boards using RDC for VAWG interventions. The authors found that opportunities exist for researchers to safely and effectively use RDC methodologies to gather VAWG data, but that further study is needed to gauge the feasibility of these methods in LMICs and humanitarian settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8422319
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84223192021-09-22 Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety Seff, Ilana Vahedi, Luissa McNelly, Samantha Kormawa, Elfriede Stark, Lindsay BMJ Glob Health Original Research Although programmes and policies targeting violence against women and girls (VAWG) have increased in the past decade, there is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. To expand this evidence base, researchers increasingly employ remote data collection (RDC)—including online surveys, mobile applications and telephone interviews—in their evaluations. Although RDC allows for evaluations without in-person interactions—which are restricted during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic— information about these methods is necessary to understand their potential usefulness and limitations. This scoping review examines remote evaluations of VAWG interventions to describe the landscape of RDC methods, reflect on safety and ethical considerations, and offer best practices for RDC in VAWG research. Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria, with seven, five, and two studies employing telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, respectively. Studies commonly stated that participants were asked to use a safe email or device, but the method for verifying such safety was rarely specified. Best practices around safety included creating a ‘quick escape’ button for online data collection to use when another individual was present, explaining to participants how to erase browsing history and application purchases, and asking participants to specify a safe time for researchers to call. Only eight studies established referral pathways for respondents as per best practice. None of the eligible studies took place in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) or humanitarian settings, likely reflecting the additional challenges to using RDC methods in lower resource settings. Findings were used to create a best practice checklist for programme evaluators and Institutional Review Boards using RDC for VAWG interventions. The authors found that opportunities exist for researchers to safely and effectively use RDC methodologies to gather VAWG data, but that further study is needed to gauge the feasibility of these methods in LMICs and humanitarian settings. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-09-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8422319/ /pubmed/34489330 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006780 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
Seff, Ilana
Vahedi, Luissa
McNelly, Samantha
Kormawa, Elfriede
Stark, Lindsay
Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title_full Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title_fullStr Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title_full_unstemmed Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title_short Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
title_sort remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8422319/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34489330
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006780
work_keys_str_mv AT seffilana remoteevaluationsofviolenceagainstwomenandgirlsinterventionsarapidscopingreviewoftoolsethicsandsafety
AT vahediluissa remoteevaluationsofviolenceagainstwomenandgirlsinterventionsarapidscopingreviewoftoolsethicsandsafety
AT mcnellysamantha remoteevaluationsofviolenceagainstwomenandgirlsinterventionsarapidscopingreviewoftoolsethicsandsafety
AT kormawaelfriede remoteevaluationsofviolenceagainstwomenandgirlsinterventionsarapidscopingreviewoftoolsethicsandsafety
AT starklindsay remoteevaluationsofviolenceagainstwomenandgirlsinterventionsarapidscopingreviewoftoolsethicsandsafety