Before the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), 1 in 3 women and girls, globally, were victimized by an abusive partner in intimate relationships. However, the current pandemic has amplified cases of domestic violence (DV) against women and girls, with up to thrice the prevalence in DV cases compared to the same time last year. Evidence of the adverse effects of the pandemic on DV is still emerging, even as violence prevention strategies are iteratively being refined by service providers, advocacy agencies, and survivors to meet stay-at-home mandates. Emotional and material support for survivors is a critical resource increasingly delivered using digital and technology-based modalities, which offer several advantages and challenges. This paper rapidly describes current DV mitigation approaches using digital solutions, signaling emerging best practices to support survivors, their children, and abusers during stay-at-home advisories. Some examples of technology-based strategies and solutions are presented. An immediate priority is mapping out current digital solutions in response to COVID-19–related DV and outlining issues with uptake, coverage, and meaningful use of digital solutions.

Background: A growing body of research shows the promise and efficacy of technology-based or digital interventions in improving the health and well-being of survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV). In addition, mental health comorbidities such as anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and depression occur three to five times more frequently in survivors of IPV than non-survivors, making these comorbidities prominent targets of technology-based interventions. Still, research on the long-term effectiveness of these interventions in reducing IPV victimization and adverse mental health effects is emergent. The significant increase in the number of trials studying technology-based therapies on IPV-related outcomes has allowed us to quantify the effectiveness of such interventions for mental health and victimization outcomes in survivors. This meta-analysis and systematic review provide critical insight from several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the overall short and long-term impact of technology-based interventions on the health and well-being of female IPV survivors. Objectives: To synthesize current evidence on the effects of technology-based or digital interventions on mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and PTSD) and victimization outcomes (physical, psychological, and sexual abuse) among IPV survivors. Search Methods: We examined multiple traditional and grey databases for studies published from 2007 to 2021. Traditional databases (such as PubMed Central, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, and PsychINFO) and grey databases were searched between April 2019 and February 2021. In addition, we searched clinical trial registries, government repositories, and reference lists. Authors were contacted where additional data was needed. We identified 3210 studies in traditional databases and 1257 from grey literature. Over 2198 studies were determined to be duplicates and eliminated, leaving 64 studies after screening titles and abstracts. Finally, 17 RCTs were retained for meta-analysis. A pre-registered protocol was developed and published before conducting this meta-analysis. Selection Criteria: We included RCTs targeting depression, anxiety, PTSD outcomes, and victimization outcomes (physical, sexual, and psychological violence) among IPV survivors using a technology-based intervention. Eligible RCTs featured a well-defined control group. There were no study restrictions based on participant gender, study setting, or follow-up duration. Included studies additionally supplied outcome data for calculating effect sizes for our desired outcome. Studies were available in full text and published between 2007 and 2021 in English. Data Collection and Analysis: We extracted relevant data and coded eligible studies. Using Cochrane's RevMan software, summary effect sizes ( Outcome by Time ) were assessed using an independent fixed-effects model. Standardized mean difference (SMD) effect sizes (or Cohen's d ) were evaluated using a Type I error rate and an alpha of 0.05. The overall intervention effects were analyzed using the Z -statistic with a p -value of 0.05. Cochran's Q test and Higgins' I ² statistics were utilized to evaluate and confirm the heterogeneity of each cumulative effect size. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment for randomized trials (RoB 2) was used to assess the quality of the studies. Campbell Systematic Reviews registered and published this study's protocol in January 2021. No exploratory moderator analysis was conducted; however, we report our findings with and without outlier studies in each meta-analysis. Main Results: Pooled results from 17 RCTs yielded 18 individual effect size comparisons among 4590 survivors (all females). Survivors included college students, married couples, substance-using women in community prisons, pregnant women, and non-English speakers, and sample sizes ranged from 15 to 672. Survivors' ages ranged from 19 to 41.5 years. Twelve RCTs were conducted in the United States and one in Canada, New Zealand, China (People's Republic of), Kenya, and Australia. The results of this meta-analysis found that technology-based interventions significantly reduced depression among female IPV survivors at 0–3 months only (SMD = −0.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = −0.17 to −0.00), anxiety among IPV survivors at 0–3 months (SMD = −0.27, 95% CI = −0.42 to −0.13, p = 0.00, I ² = 25%), and physical violence victimization among IPV survivors at 0–6 months (SMD = −0.22, 95% CI = −0.38 to −0.05). We found significant reductions in psychological violence victimization at 0–6 months (SMD = −0.34, 95% CI = −0.47 to −0.20) and at >6 months (SMD = −0.29, 95% CI = −0.39 to −0.18); however, at both time points, there were outlier studies. At no time point did digital interventions significantly reduce PTSD (SMD = −0.04, 95% CI = −0.14 to 0.06, p = .46, I ² = 0%), or sexual violence victimization (SMD = −0.02, 95% CI = −0.14 to 0.11, I ² = 21%) among female IPV survivors for all. With outlier studies removed from our analysis, all summary effect sizes were small, and this small number of comparisons prevented moderator analyses. Authors' Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis are promising. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of IPV-mitigating digital intervention as an add-on (not a replacement) to traditional modalities using a coordinated response strategy. Our findings contribute to the current understanding of “what works” to promote survivors' mental health, safety, and well-being. Future research could advance the science by identifying active intervention ingredients, mapping out intervention principles/mechanisms of action, best modes of delivery, adequate dosage levels using the treatment intensity matching process, and guidelines to increase feasibility and acceptability.

Introduction: Studies show digital interventions such as mobile and wireless platforms (e.g., smartphone apps, text messaging) and web-based platforms (online support groups and telehealth services) can improve the mental health outcomes for victims/survivors of partner abuse. Depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety are three to five times higher among victims than nonvictims and are thus popular targets of digital interventions. Even then, the evidence is scant. The current review uses both narrative and quantitative (meta-analysis) techniques to present extensive evidence on the effects of intimate partner violence (IPV) digital interventions on the mental health outcomes among survivors of partner violence across all genders and ages, specifically, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. This is the first meta-analysis on IPV-related mental health outcomes targeted by digital interventions. Objectives: To synthesize current evidence on the intervention and treatment effects of digital and technology-based interventions (mHealth and eHealth) addressing IPV mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, and PTSD) among survivors of IPV. This study's research questions are as follows: (a) What are the overall average treatment effects of IPV digital interventions on IPV survivors' mental health outcomes? (b) Do these mental health outcomes vary based on methodological study designs, sample characteristics, and intervention characteristics? Methods: An extensive search strategy will be utilized to find qualifying studies. Various electronic bibliographic databases will be searched for studies since 2009 (coinciding with the onset of mobile health interventions). Other databases, such as government databases, grey literature databases, trial registers, specialty journals, and citations in other studies will be searched. Also, we will search “grey databases,” such as Google Scholar. Ethical and safety concerns preclude the randomization of IPV survivors to specific intervention conditions. Therefore, we will not exclude studies based on a lack of random assignment. Studies will be full-text accessible, published in any language (translatable into English). We will also contact researchers where needed data is missing in their report. Neither language, study location, nor study settings will be a limiter for searches. Keyword and MeSH headings will be used. Effect sizes (Hedges' g) will be estimated with a Type I error rate set at an alpha of .05. Results: All studies will measure IPV-related mental health as an outcome and provide outcome data to calculate effect sizes for PTSD, anxiety, depression, and victimization (physical, psychological, and sexual violence). Conclusion: Digital interventions may clinically reduce depression, anxiety, PTSD, and IPV victimization. Summary effect sizes ranging from small to large will signal the usefulness of digital interventions to IPV survivors contending with common mental health issues. Future studies beyond this one may identify other active intervention ingredients of digital interventions, best modes of delivery, and guidelines to increase their feasibility and acceptability.

Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs) show minimal evidence of treatment efficacy in curbing post-intervention recidivism. These interventions demonstrate even less significant treatment potential for Immigrant Male Batterers (IMB) who contend with intersecting pre- and post-migration barriers to intervention uptake in BIPs in their host countries. Accordingly, best practices on treatment components of BIPs with promising results among IMB remain inconclusive. A search for quantitative and qualitative outcomes/intervention studies conducted in ten electronic databases revealed only eight studies that met inclusion criteria. Findings showed interventions targeting IMB compared the effects of new or modified curricula to standard curricula with immigrant vs. non-immigrant group comparison. Participants were typically newly migrated Hispanic men in the United States. Low to moderate partner violence was commonly reported. Culturally-specific programs utilized hybridized BIP curricula, bilingual facilitators, leveraged positive aspects of culture, and included batterers in the subsequent design of interventions. Allowing for group negotiations of cultural expressions of masculinity produced promising short-term results in changing IPV-tolerant attitudes. However, long-term impact remains inconclusive. Findings have implications for culture-congruent IMB intervention programs designed to address immigrant IPV outcomes and improve treatment uptake. Suggestions for future IMB intervention design are discussed.

Background: Black boys and men from disinvested communities are disproportionately survivors and perpetrators of youth violence. Those presenting to emergency departments with firearm-related injuries also report recent substance use. However, young Black men face several critical individual and systemic barriers to accessing trauma-focused prevention programs. These barriers contribute to service avoidance, the exacerbation of violence recidivism, substance use relapse, and a revolving-door approach to prevention. In addition, young Black men are known to be digital natives. Therefore, technology-enhanced interventions offer a pragmatic and promising opportunity to mitigate these barriers, provide vital life skills for self-led behavior change, and boost service engagement with vital community resources. Objective: The study aims to systematically adapt and pilot-test Boosting Violence-Related Outcomes Using Technology for Empowerment, Risk Reduction, and Life Skills Preparation in Youth Based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (BrotherlyACT), a culturally congruent, trauma-focused digital psychoeducational and service-engagement tool tailored to young Black men aged 15-24 years. BrotherlyACT will incorporate microlearning modules, interactive safety planning tools for risk assessment, goal-setting, mindfulness practice, and a service-engagement conversational agent or chatbot to connect young Black men to relevant services. Methods: The development of BrotherlyACT will occur in 3 phases. In phase 1, we will qualitatively investigate barriers and facilitators influencing young Black men’s willingness to use violence and substance use prevention services with 15-30 young Black men (aged 15-24 years) who report perpetrating violence and substance use in the past year and 10 service providers (aged >18 years; any gender; including health care providers, street outreach workers, social workers, violence interrupters, community advocates, and school staff). Both groups will be recruited from community and pediatric emergency settings. In phase 2, a steering group of topic experts (n=3-5) and a youth and community advisory board comprising young Black men (n=8-12) and service providers (n=5-10) will be involved in participatory design, alpha testing, and beta testing sessions to develop, refine, and adapt BrotherlyACT based on an existing skills-based program (Achieving Change Through Values-Based Behavior). We will use user-centered design principles and the Assessment, Decision, Administration, Production, Topical, Experts, Integration, Training, and Testing framework to guide this adaptation process (phase 2). In phase 3, a total of 60 young Black men will pilot-test the adapted BrotherlyACT over 10 weeks in a single-group, pretest-posttest design to determine its feasibility and implementation outcomes. Results: Phase 1 data collection began in September 2021. Phases 2 and 3 are scheduled to start in June 2023 and end in September 2024. Conclusions: The development and testing of BrotherlyACT is a crucial first step in expanding an evidence-based psychoeducational and service-mediating intervention for young Black men involved in violence. This colocation of services shifts the current prevention strategy from telling them why to change to teaching them how. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/43842