| Literature DB >> 26740731 |
Nicky Stanley1, Jane Ellis1, Nicola Farrelly1, Sandra Hollinghurst2, Soo Downe3.
Abstract
Schools provide the setting in which interventions aimed at preventing intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA) are delivered to young people in the general population and a range of programmes have been designed and evaluated. To date, most rigorous studies have been undertaken in North America and the extent to which programmes are transferable to other settings and cultures is uncertain. This paper reports on a mixed methods review, aimed at informing UK practise and policy, which included a systematic review of the international literature, a review of the UK grey literature and consultation with young people as well as experts to address the question of what works for whom in what circumstances. The context in which an intervention was delivered was found to be crucial. Context included: the wider policy setting; the national or regional level, where the local culture shaped understandings of IPVA, and the readiness of an individual school. The programmes included in the systematic review provided stronger evidence for changing knowledge and attitudes than for behavioural change and those young people who were at higher risk at baseline may have exerted a strong influence on study outcomes. Shifting social norms in the peer group emerged as a key mechanism of change and the young people consulted emphasised the importance of authenticity which could be achieved through the use of drama and which required those delivering programmes to have relevant expertise. While the consultation identified increasing interest in targeting interventions on boys, there was an identified lack of materials designed for minority groups of young people, especially Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender young people. Increased responsivity to the local context can be achieved by involving those who will deliver and receive these preventive programmes in their development. Schools need to be better prepared and supported in the task of delivering these interventions and this is particularly relevant for the management of disclosures of IPVA. Outcomes measured by evaluations should include those relevant to education.Entities:
Keywords: Dating violence; Domestic abuse; Intimate partner violence and abuse (IPVA); Prevention
Year: 2015 PMID: 26740731 PMCID: PMC4678286 DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.10.018
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Youth Serv Rev ISSN: 0190-7409
Summary characteristics for included randomised studies.
| Author date country | Programme title | Programme design | Study quality | Youth input? | Compliance and fidelity | Resource needs (high, med, low) | N youth included in final sample (intervention: control) | N sites | Context | Outcomes affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No specific title | Five session curriculum | C/D (pilot) | N | Not reported | 102 treatment/90 control 55% female overall: 63% of control group | 1 (health classes randomised) | One school year. Grades 9–12. Almost 80% White. Lower middle class | Attitude (short term) | ||
| Safe Dates | Ten sessions of 45 min | B | N | Y | Total n 1700/1886 | 7:7 | 8th and 9th grade (13–15). High levels of dating violence at baseline (1:3). | Attitude, knowledge, incidence | ||
| Safe Dates: 1 year follow up | 1603 left in at 1 yr | 7:7 | As for code 64 | Attitudes, knowledge | ||||||
| Safe Dates + booster; 4 years | 460 | 5:5 | 8th grade only: sub-randomised to booster or not | Incidence | ||||||
| Safe Dates: 4 years individual analysis | 1566 left in analysis (636 treatment/930 control: those who received the booster excluded: analysis by individual: those | 7:7 | As for code 54 | Knowledge, Attitude, incidence | ||||||
| Families for Safe Dates | Leaflets sent out to parents × 6 (‘full treatment’ group) | B | N | Y : 88% of the treatment | 1237 eligible households, 514 responses (37.1%). | N/A | Families with teenagers | Knowledge, attitude, behaviour, incidence | ||
| Break the Cycle | Three hours over 3 days of programme, run by lawyers who were activists in the area of DV | B | Y | On average 69% of curriculum covered | 1384/1941; 1156/1859 | 55:55 | Latino/a population: US culture where legal solutions are the norm. All ages | Knowledge, attitudes, behaviour ( | ||
| Coaching Boys into Men | Coaches discuss 11 key messages in 10–15 min sessions over 12 weeks in sports training sessions | A/B | N | 60% full compliance by coaches | 847/1008: 951/998 | 8:8 | US athletic culture. All ages | Knowledge, behaviour, incidence | ||
| No specific title | Three 80 min sessions plus time to view a video | B | Y ‘videos to create credible communication through peers’ | Not reported | /239:/219Tot: 458/547 | 2 | Mainly 10th grade students | Attitude, only for subgroup more likely to be higher risk at baseline, and after data modelling | ||
| Shifting Boundaries | Classroom: Six sessions over 6–10 weeks. | B | Y | Not reported | 2655 in total: allocation between groups not specified | 30 | 6th 7th grade | Incidence | ||
| No specific programme title | Five classroom periods 40 min each. | B | N | Not reported | 1639 in total: allocation between groups not specified | 123 classrooms: | 6/7 grade. Wide ethnic mix | Knowledge, attitude, incidence | ||
| Gender differences in | No gender effects | |||||||||
| The 4th R | 21 lesson curriculum: 28 h. Detailed lesson plans, videos, | B | Y (peer support as part of the programme) | Not reported | 754/916: | 10:10 | Grade 9 students | Incidence ( |
Short term = immediately after intervention and up to one month; medium term = up to 5 months after intervention; longer term = 6mths–under 4 years after the intervention; longest term = 4 or more yrs. after the intervention.
All assessments based on at least p < 0.05 unless there are very large numbers of multiple tests when it is set at < 0.01.
Summary characteristics for included non-randomised studies.
| Lead author date country | Programme | Programme design | Study quality | Youth input? | Delivered with high compliance and fidelity | Resource needs (High, med, low) | N youth included in final sample (intervention: control) | N sites | Context | Outcomes affected |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Theatre intervention to prevent teen dating violence | School based: two plays (4 actors and the director) and a talkback session | B/C | ?Y developing the plays highly iterative and based on prior qual work | Not reported | 66 | 3 schools ? one class in each? | 8th grade. High levels of poverty, 56% local community Latina/o. Most felt moderately unsafe locally | Attitude | ||
| Healthy Relationships Programme | C for quant data | N | Not stated | Cohort before and after (no control) — 55/85 completed final assessment | 1 (1 class) | Year 8, one school, one class: high rates social exclusion, v low rates of academic success, marginalised community. Local DV services in place | Knowledge, attitudes, behaviour | |||
| Dating Violence Prevention Project | Ten to twelve 50 min weekly sessions. Mix of same gender and mixed gender programmes (same gender all in one school; mixed gender all in the other school | C | Not noted | ? Not noted, though biweekly meetings with facilitators intended to increase fidelity. 75–80% of those eligible participated | 377/396 (intervention) | 2 | Very marginalised area, high absenteeism, low attainment, 99% African-Americans | Attitude | ||
| B for satisfaction survey | Girls more satisfied with programme than boys | |||||||||
| Connections: Relationship and Marriage | 15 1 h sessions plus a student workbook. 4 units: personality (3 lessons), relationships 3 lessons), communication (2 lessons), marriage (7 lessons). | C/D | Not reported | Not reported | 4 years post: 72/743 who did pre and post survey? (not clear how many completed the course): participants excluded if they took a further marriage course, and if couldn't be matched to a control | 30 schools | Grades 11–12 | Incidence | ||
| Antiviolence education | 1 h fact giving assembly, then two 1 h workshops selected from 6 available. | C | N (but built on extensive testing of programme elements) | ‘normal absentee rate of 10–20%’ for assembly. No other information | L | 325/370/489 Based on 123/489 who did all three tests | 4 | Grade 11. Mixed urban/rural | Knowledge | |
| No specific programme | Range of different audio visual and external experts used (different content in different schools). Two schools half day, two schools full day | C/D (lower score due to incomplete reporting of data) | ? possible – need to check prog design papers | ? No data in this paper | 627–629/737. | 4 | Low unemployment, relative affluence, mixed employment types, 90% + White | Attitudes | ||
| Mentors in Violence Prevention | Ongoing iterative programme. MVP peer mentors/leaders chosen to closely mirror the ethnic and racial composition of the entire student body. | A/B | Y | ? not stated | 894 (89%) intervention school | 2 | Grade 9–12. approx. 50% White in both schools, but more Hispanic (23%) in Intervention school: 36% African American in control school | Attitude | ||
| Skills for Violence-free relationships | Team teaching by teacher and battered women's counsellor of 10 consecutive health education class meetings (2 weeks). | B | Not apparent | Not stated | 239 total — not clear how this divides between case and control | 2 | 7th grade students 78.8% European American. | Knowledge | ||
| Prevention programme for violence in teen dating relationship | Short: Two classroom sessions (total 2–2.5 h). Long: 2 more sessions (added 2–2.5 h). Provided by one volunteer and one paid staff member from a community organisation | B/C | Not evident | No data | Short: 279 | 2: one long form one short form | Inner city. French speaking. 10th grade. No other info | Attitude | ||
| No specific title | Five 1 h sessions over 5 days. Developed by Domestic violence team. Presented by 5 teachers | C | Not evident | Y/N | M | 247 girls (56%)193 boys (43.9% tot 440/802: | 1 | Grade 6–8. 72.3% black non-Hispanic. 8.3% White. No other data | Knowledge | |
| Coaching Boys into Men | Coaches discussed 12 key messages with male students who were cricket players in 45–60 min sessions over 4 months in sports training sessions | B | Y | Y to an extent | 663/741 completed baseline Q | 27/46 eligible: not clear why these and not the others | Age 10–16 | Attitude | ||
| No specific programme | Three 35 min sessions (constrained by national curriculum requirements). Mix of information giving, video, general and case-based discussion and small-group work | C | Not evident from description of design | ? no data in this paper | 100/107 intervention (58% female) | 2 (one case one control) | No data given (though inner city schools NW England) | Knowledge | ||
| Reaching and Teaching Teens to Stop Violence | Twelve 1.5 h sessions. 2 co-trainers per course (from rape counselling centre. | D | ? role play based on local groups' experience | Not stated | M | 46/27/21 intervention; 20/0/9 : comparison, by time point | 1 (2 classes) | 99% African American very low income many who had failed at other schools | Knowledge | |
| Fourth R | 21 lesson curriculum: 28 h | A/B | Y in designing the scenarios and as lead actors in the role-play | ? No data given | Not relevant for this element (see code 52 for info re 4th R programme) | 96 intervention | 6 of 20 in RCT 3 per arm: chosen for convenience | Grade 9. Location demogs similar to all 20 schools in Wolfe RCT | Behavoiur |
| Include | Exclude |
|---|---|
| Papers and reports published/dated between 1990 and 2012, updated to February 2014 | Papers and reports published/dated before 1990 |
| Published in any language | No language restrictions |
| Peer-reviewed research papers: all countries | Research papers that are not subject to peer review |
| Meta-analyses, research reviews, controlled studies, before-and-after studies, independent case evaluations, qualitative and ethnographic studies | In-house evaluations, internal audits |
| Qualitative studies that do not include the views of children and young people participating in interventions using their direct quotes | |
| Children and young people at or below the age of 18 | Studies with minimal or no data relevant to children/young adults below 18 |
| Studies focused on prevention programmes for adults who perpetrate abuse | |
| Studies including interventions to prevent domestic abuse | Studies focused only on child abuse and neglect or on bullying |
| Studies including children/young people in the general population | Studies only including children and young people who have experienced domestic abuse |
| Studies only including children and young people who have perpetrated domestic abuse | |
| Studies of interventions aiming to prevent children and young people becoming either/both victims or perpetrators of domestic abuse | Studies focused only on prevalence or outcomes of domestic abuse |
| Population | Intervention | Context | Outcome (general) | Outcome (specific) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Child* OR | Prevent* OR | Media OR | Outcome OR | Domestic AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Young person OR | Educat* OR | Communit* OR | Cost OR | Home AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Young adult OR | Train*OR | Public* OR | Cost analysis OR | Family AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Young people OR | Teach* OR | School* | Cost effectiveness OR | Families AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Adolescen* OR | Promot*OR | College | Acceptabl* OR | Gender AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Teenager* OR | Instruct*OR | School-based | Effective* OR | Spous* AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR |
| Youth* | Campaign* OR | Experience* OR | Partner* AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |
| Social Marketing OR | View* OR | Fiancé AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | ||
| Attitude* OR | Cohabitant*AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |||
| Help seeking OR | Intimate AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |||
| Protective Behaviour*OR | Interpersonal AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*))OR | |||
| Harm reduction OR | Dat*AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |||
| Healthy rel*OR | Relationship AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |||
| Respectful rel*OR | Marital AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) OR | |||
| Resources | Conjugal AND ((abuse OR violen* OR batter*)) | |||
| Perpat* | ||||
| Victim* |