A Review of Intimate Partner Violence Interventions Relevant to Women During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

Women have experienced increased rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) since the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic, and at the same time requirements for physical distancing and/or remote delivery of services have created challenges in accessing services. We synthesized research evidence from 4 systematic reviews and 20 individual studies to address how IPV interventions can be adapted within the context of the pandemic. As many interventions have been delivered via various technologies, access to technology is of particular importance during the pandemic. Our results can inform the provision of services during the remainder of the COVID-19 pandemic including how to support women who have little access to in-person services.

Intimate Partner Abuse and Homicide During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Situational Action Theory Analysis

“…Reporting may have increased as an extension of help-seeking and significant life changes, as observed in other natural disasters, and because people recognized acts as abusive that previously went unacknowledged (e.g., minor or infrequent IPA, or IPA by a new partner; Kaukinen, 2020; Trafford, 2022). However, access to and the nature of services changed during the pandemic as services were scaled back and adapted, for example, focusing resources on the most serious incidents (Estlein et al, 2022; Fogarty et al, 2022; Gosangi et al, 2021; Hazebrouck, 2022; Maskály et al, 2021; Weeks et al, 2023). Consequently, victims may have been less able or inclined to seek professional help, particularly for less severe incidents.…”

“…In many cultural contexts, specific messages were also widely communicated about the risks of IPA during stay-at-home restrictions, and many countries introduced new services and made services more accessible remotely (Emezue, 2020; Fogarty et al, 2022; Garcia et al, 2022; Hazebrouck, 2022; Weeks et al, 2023). Where effective, these efforts enhanced awareness of IPA as unacceptable, strengthening the salience of rules (laws, social norms) against IPA, but this may not have changed people’s perception of the acceptability of IPA, given the rules themselves did not change.…”