An Exploratory Study of a Computer-Assisted Abuse Awareness and Safety Planning Program for Men With Disabilities: The Men's Safer and Stronger Program

Oschwald, Mary; Lund, Emily M.; Latorre, Allyn; Shelton, Rollin; Hughes, Rosemary B.; Liston, Bob; Flaherty, Michael C.; Powers, Laurie E.

doi:10.1080/1536710x.2015.1014533

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Men’s SSP was a program development study with the aims of developing (Lund et al, 2015) and pilot-testing (Lund et al, 2015; Oschwald et al, 2015) a web-based abuse and safety education and screening program specifically for men with disabilities that used audio computer-assisted self-interview (A-CASI) technology. The Men’s SSP project featured information on different types of abuse, warning signs, safety planning tips, resources, and interviews with male violence survivors with disabilities.…”

Section: Project Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The project had three main developmental phases: (1) understanding stakeholder needs; (2) program development and revision; and (3) expert review by men with disabilities. Following expert review and related revisions, a small pilot study was also conducted (Oschwald et al, 2015) that included collecting participant feedback and usability data (Lund et al, 2015). In this study, “disability” was broadly defined to include any chronic physical or mental condition that limits functioning in activities of daily living (Americans with Disabilities Act, 1990); men who identified as Deaf but not disabled were also included.…”

Section: Project Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this article, we discuss examples of two CBPR-based projects addressing violence among people with disability: (a) an intervention development project (the Men’s Safer and Stronger Program [Men’s SSP]; Lund et al, 2015; Oschwald et al, 2015) and (b) a cross-sectional measurement adaptation and survey study (the Partnering with People with Developmental Disabilities to Address Violence Project [Partnering Project]; Hughes et al, 2019; McDonald & Stack, 2016; Nicolaidis et al, 2015; Oschwald et al, 2014; Platt et al, 2017; Stack & McDonald, 2018) to illustrate how a CBPR approach was used to mutually benefit both advocacy and research on violence against people with disabilities through continuous, equitable, and bidirectional partnerships. All examples used in this article are from these two projects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Creating academic-community partnerships to jointly enhance advocacy and research on violence and disability: Two case examples.

Lund¹,

Hughes²,

McDonald³

et al. 2022

Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This article describes the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) to foster bidirectional and equitable academic-community partnerships in two studies related to interpersonal violence and disability. Method: We analyzed our methods and experiences in conducting these studies to focus on the ways in which CBPR methodology was used to jointly promote and enhance research and advocacy surrounding violence and disability in the research processes themselves and the resulting assessment and intervention products. Results: Our use of CBPR methodology allowed us to identify and address critical issues related to violence in the disability community, such as disability-related forms and experiences of violence, concerns and barriers linked to mandated reporting laws, and inaccessible measures and interventions, and to address them in research products. Additionally, our bidirectional academic-community partnerships led us to address overall accessibility of the research process itself as a means by which to amplify advocate voices in science. Conclusions: Full, meaningful, and equitable participation of people with disabilities at every stage of the research process allows for the creation of partnerships that jointly advance research and advocacy around violence and disability. Clinical Impact StatementDespite being at higher risk for violence, people with disabilities are often left out of academic conversations around violence, and their experiences and concerns go unheard. To address this, academic researchers partnered with community members with disabilities to create accessible assessments and interventions that addressed the lived experiences of violence in disability Emily M.

show abstract

Section: Project Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Project Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Creating academic-community partnerships to jointly enhance advocacy and research on violence and disability: Two case examples.

Lund¹,

Hughes²,

McDonald³

et al. 2022

Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Safety programmes targeting PwDs must be relevant to their daily reality. More recently, MwDs have been included in safety training for PwDs, including SSP-Men (Lund et al, 2015;Oschwald et al, 2015). MwDs are vulnerable to abuse, partly owing to male gender-role socialisation, lack of awareness of the victimisation of men and inadequate victim support (Powers et al, 2008;Saxton et al, 2006).…”

Section: Context Of Disability Abusementioning

confidence: 99%

Promoting safety awareness and protection skills for people with disabilities: a literature review

Goh

Andrew

2021

JAP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose High prevalence of violence against persons with disabilities (PwDs) has prompted a steady growth of training aimed at equipping PwDs with personal safety skills. This paper aims to examine the efficacy of safety trainings for PwDs. Design/methodology/approach A search of relevant electronic databases was conducted to shortlist peer-reviewed literature on empirically evaluated safety trainings for PwDs, between January 2010 and August 2020 with the defined inclusion criteria. Findings Six safety programmes were reviewed. Data analysis revealed key themes related to programme modifications for accessibility; fit of intervention to disability type; PwDs’ learning needs; and the context of disability abuse in designing intervention pathways. Originality/value PwDs can benefit from and contribute to safety training, if programmes are adequately modified to support their learning and participation. Future studies can target disability abuse by known persons; different disability groups; and generate longitudinal data to strengthen validity of programme efficacy.

show abstract

“…Hughes et al, 2011). However, researchers who study the abuse of adults with disabilities have found that adults with disabilities are also at increased risk for types of abuse specific to the presence of disability, sometimes referred to as disability-related abuse (Nosek, Foley, Hughes, & Howland, 2001; Oschwald et al, 2015; Saxton et al, 2001, 2006). Disability-related abuse refers to abuse which relies on the specific vulnerabilities that people with disabilities experience and thus would be unlikely to be experienced by those without disabilities.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Childhood Disability-Related Abuse: A Retrospective Proof-of-Concept Study

Lund

Corr

Kinavey

et al. 2019

J Interpers Violence

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although the phenomenon of disability-related abuse has been well-documented in adults with disabilities, the occurrence of disability-related abuse in childhood has not been studied. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to establish proof of concept for childhood disability-related abuse. American adults ( n = 485) retrospectively report on physical, sexual, and disability-related abuse that they experienced before the age of 18. The sample consisted of 382 participants with no disability, 55 participants with an adult-onset disability, and 48 participants with a childhood-onset disability. Disability-related abuse was conceptualized as involving either (a) the denial of assistive technology or (b) the denial of care, permission, or assistance with an activity of self-care. Childhood denial of assistive technology was rare in all groups (1.3%-2.1%), but denial of care, assistance, or permission was significantly higher in the childhood-onset disability group (20.8%) than either the adult-onset (7.3%) or no-disability (6.5%) groups. The three groups did not significantly differ in the rates of reported childhood physical or sexual abuse. This study provides preliminary proof-of-concept evidence for childhood disability-related abuse, particularly denial of care.

show abstract

An Exploratory Study of a Computer-Assisted Abuse Awareness and Safety Planning Program for Men With Disabilities: The Men's Safer and Stronger Program

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Creating academic-community partnerships to jointly enhance advocacy and research on violence and disability: Two case examples.

Creating academic-community partnerships to jointly enhance advocacy and research on violence and disability: Two case examples.

Promoting safety awareness and protection skills for people with disabilities: a literature review

Childhood Disability-Related Abuse: A Retrospective Proof-of-Concept Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About