Engaging domestic abuse practitioners and survivors in a review of outcome tools – reflections on differing priorities

Abstract

Researchers often develop and decide upon the measurement tools for assessing outcomes related to domestic abuse interventions. However, it is known that clients, service providers and researchers have different ideas about the outcomes that should be measured as markers of success. Evidence from non-domestic abuse sectors indicates that engagement of service providers, clients and researchers contributes to more robust research, policy and practice. We reflect on what we have learnt from the engagement of practitioners and domestic abuse survivors in a review of domestic abuse measurement tools where there were clear differences in priorities between survivors, practitioners and researchers about the ideal measurement tools. The purpose of this reflective article is to support the improvement of future outcome measurement from domestic abuse interventions, while ensuring that domestic abuse survivors do not relive trauma because of measurement.

Trends in outcomes used to measure the effectiveness of UK-based support interventions and services targeted at adults with experience of domestic and sexual violence and abuse: a scoping review

“…Indeed, in their review Sprague et al 57 noted that many DSVA services have multiple goals that cannot be assessed by a single outcome, thus multiple outcomes are required. Second, differences between the priorities of funders, services and service users, and researchers in terms of outcome measurement likely result in diversity in outcomes and differences in outcome measures used between sectors 58 59. Third, there is currently a lack of consensus across the field regarding what outcomes should be measured and, importantly, how.…”

“…The specific outcome measures that are being used appear to vary, making it difficult to compare and synthesise the overall evidence 56. Previous research in the UK and US literature that has explored outcome measurement in the DSVA field has noted the diversity of reported outcomes57 58 and highlighted various issues and difficulties surrounding outcome measurement, which contributes to this diversity 59 60. These studies point to the differing priorities of funders and service providers, and the diversity of specific DSVA service goals and objectives, which are often multiple and complex, as key drivers behind the range of outcomes being used.…”