The normalization of gender-based violence (GBV) consists of all those cultural beliefs and values that sustain, justify, or minimize GBV perpetration. Acknowledging the lack of instruments addressing the normalization of GBV and its constitutive sociocultural dimensions, this article presents the conceptual development and initial validation of the Normalization of gender-based violence against women scale. This 18-item instrument could be used to assess the normalization of violence against women in GBV survivors of various cultural contexts. The scale has been developed through a sizeable mixed-methods study. This paper reports the qualitative portion of the study that allowed the development of the instrument and assessment of its content and face validity. In particular, the method section details the process by which the assessed scale’s domain has been identified through an expert panel workshop, the analysis of GBV survivor’s interviews, and the review of existing scales. The assessment of face and content validity, trough expert judges’ evaluation and Cognitive Interviewing, is presented. This instrument is the first normalization scale developed by a multicultural team for use with violence survivors. The techniques used to construct this scale aimed to capture cultural aspects of normalization that might be shared across women from diverse groups. Therefore, its use could enable social or health care providers worldwide to program or evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to contrast GBV by promoting a clearer understanding of cultural and social norms that sustain the acceptance and normalization of violence.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is a global human rights violation of vast proportions and a severe public health problem. Despite high rates of adverse outcomes related to IPV, help-seeking and service utilization among survivors is low. This exploratory sequential mixed-methods study using a combined etic–emic approach describes the validation of the Icelandic Barriers to Help-Seeking for Trauma (BHS-TR) scale. The qualitative phase involved developing new items based on the experiences of 17 Icelandic IPV survivors, identifying barriers including beliefs that help-seeking is a sign of weakness, and the desire to safeguard oneself from re-traumatization. The quantitative phase examined the psychometrics of the BHS-TR in a sample of 137 IPV survivors in Iceland. Results supported an eight-factor structure (Financial Concerns; Unavailable/Not Helpful; External Constraints; Inconvenience; Weakness/Vulnerability; Problem Management Beliefs; Frozen/Confused; and Shame), which when grouped comprised two indices of Structural and Internal Barriers. The scale’s internal consistency was high (α = 0.87), and the results provided evidence of convergent, discriminant, and known-group validity. This study adds to the growing literature supporting the advantages of applying mixed methods for instrument development and validation, and its results highlight the significance of giving rise to the voices of survivors. The BHS-TR is the first trauma-specific and survivor-centered measure of help-seeking barriers available in Iceland. It can be used to provide valuable information that may guide the development of evidence-based interventions to break down barriers and help survivors find ways to trauma recovery.

Healing after gender-based violence (GBV) is multidimensional, with varying instruments used in the scientific literature to capture this phenomenon quantitively in survivor populations. The purpose of this scoping review was to (a) describe quantitative measures used to evaluate recovery after GBV, (b) compare these findings with domains uncovered in a qualitative metasynthesis about survivors’ perspectives about healing after GBV, and (c) summarize recovery relationships found. We searched Pubmed, PsycInfo, and Violence/Criminology/Family Studies Abstracts. Studies were included for review if they (a) used quantitative methods, (b) evaluated healing or recovery in survivors of GBV, (c) were available in English, and (d) were empirical articles in peer-reviewed journals. Two thousand nine hundred thirty-five articles were reviewed by title and abstract, and 92 articles were reviewed by full text. Twenty-six articles were included in this review. Eight studies used an alleviation of adverse symptomology as a proxy for recovery, eight used growth-related outcomes, and ten used a combination of both types of measures. While the quantitative instruments synthesized in this review seemed to map onto some of the recovery domains identified through qualitative metasynthesis, no study synthesized measured all domains simultaneously. Studies synthesized identified that recovery-related outcomes may be influenced by social support, symptom burden, disclosure, and various therapeutic intervention programs tested in the literature to date. Synthesizing research on recovery after GBV is an essential step to understand gaps in measurement and understanding. Streamlining and using holistic recovery outcome measurement can aid in the development of evidence-based interventions to promote healing in survivor populations.

Background: Even though traumatization is linked to substantially reduced health-related quality of life, help-seeking and service utilization among trauma survivors are very low. To date, there has not been available in Iceland a culturally attuned, self-reported measure on help-seeking barriers after trauma. This study aimed to translate and cross-culturally adapt the English version of Barriers to Help-Seeking for Trauma (BHS-TR) scale into the Icelandic language and context. Methods: The BHS-TR was culturally adapted following well-established and rigorous guidelines, including forward-backward translation, expert committee review, and pretesting through cognitive interviews. Two rounds of interviews with 17 female survivors of intimate partner violence were conducted using a think-aloud technique and verbal probing. Data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, a combination of deductive and inductive approaches. Results: Issues with the BHS-TR that were uncovered in the study were classified into four categories related to general design, translation, cultural aspects, and post-trauma context. The trauma-specific issues emerged as a new category identified in this study and included concepts specific to trauma experiences. Therefore, modifications were of great importance—resulting in the scale becoming more trauma-informed. Revisions made to address identified issues improved the scale, and the process led to an Icelandic version, which appears to be semantically and conceptually equivalent to the original version; additionally, the results provided evidence of content validity. Conclusions: As a cognitive interview study, it adds to the growing cognitive interviewing methodology literature. Furthermore, the results provide essential insights into the self-report response process of trauma survivors, highlighting the significance of making health-related research instruments trauma-informed.

The traumatic loss of a loved one is among the most common traumatic events worldwide and represents a public mental health concern. This study assessed the lifetime prevalence of such losses in a nationally representative sample of Icelandic adults. Among traumatically bereaved individuals in this sample ( N = 1,002; 56.4% women, 43.6% men), a hierarchical structural equation model was used to examine loss‐related, personal, interpersonal, and emotion regulation factors associated with psychological distress. The overall prevalence of exposure to traumatic loss was high (56.7%). Significant risk factors identified for psychological distress included being a woman, β = .084; a history of multiple losses; β = .090; and higher levels of anger control difficulties, β = .459. Conversely, older age, β = −.076; higher levels of educational attainment, β = −.100; more financial security, β = −.218; and higher social support, β = −.253, were identified as protective factors. These findings underscore the burden of traumatic loss and point to potential targets for mental health prevention efforts among bereaved individuals.

Minimal research has examined culturally nuanced healing experiences across national landscapes, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of culturally relevant healing experiences for survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). This paper explores these experience among 136 survivors of GBV across seven global contexts. Using the Clinical Ethnographic Narrative Interview-Trauma, after reflecting on their healing journey, survivors shared advice for others healing from GBV. Using the Comparative Ethnographic Narrative Analysis Method, we found shared, culturally distinct, and nuanced themes in this advice, including actions to promote healing, building a positive self-concept, and finding strength. Findings underscore the importance of contextually sensitive and survivor-informed approaches in social and health services, urging more tailored healing strategies after GBV. Findings also demonstrate the importance of analyzing cultural nuance in qualitative research themes to allow more culturally relevant survivorship care.