Systematic review: Effectiveness of UK-based adult domestic and sexual violence support interventions and services
Recommendations
- Further high-quality research into the effectiveness of domestic and sexual violence and abuse (DVSA) interventions and evaluations of perpetrator programmes are required, including randomised controlled studies where appropriate and ethical, to improve certainty regarding the effect estimates generated from evidence syntheses. Published protocols, adherence to reporting guidelines, such as CONSORT, STROBE and SQUIRE 2.0, and considering and accounting for confounding factors where randomisation is not feasible, will strengthen the research.
- Developing a core outcome set via co-production with survivors, practitioners and service providers, commissioners, policy makers and researchers will increase consistency in reported outcomes and create the cohesion necessary to develop a robust evidence base to aid understanding of how effective various support services are.
In the United Kingdom, there are a range of support services and interventions for people who have experienced domestic and sexual violence and abuse (DSVA), including refuges, advocacy such as Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), referral, outreach, and helplines. These are often provided by the Voluntary and Community Sector (VCS), although may also be located in the public or private sector. Due to the lack of consensus on outcomes used to assess effectiveness, evidence syntheses in this field have been limited.
Dr Sophie Carlisle led a team of VISION researchers, Dr Annie Bunce, Prof Sally McManus, Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa, Prof Gene Feder, and Dr Natalia V Lewis, and Prof Matthew Prina from Kings College London. They used findings from their scoping review to identify the common reported outcomes, to direct and inform an evidence synthesis on the effectiveness of UK-based interventions and services for DSVA.
The team conducted a systematic review and, where possible, meta-analysis. They searched relevant peer reviewed and grey literature sources. The following were included: randomised controlled trials, non-randomised comparative studies, pre-post studies, and service evaluations of support interventions or services for adults who had experienced or perpetrated DSVA. The intervention typology and selection of outcomes was determined based on co-production with stakeholders from specialist DSVA organisations. The quality of the studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. Where meta-analysis was not possible, the researchers synthesized studies with vote counting based on the direction of effect.
The review demonstrates that there appear to be benefits of UK-based advocacy and outreach services, psychological support interventions, and perpetrator programmes. However, risk of bias and methodological heterogeneity means that there is uncertainty regarding the estimated effects.
A co-produced core-outcome set is needed to develop a more robust evidence base and facilitate future research in this field. Research practices such as publishing of study protocols, following reporting guidelines and, for research where randomisation is not feasible, considering and accounting for potential confounding factors, would greatly improve the quality of research.
To download the paper: Effectiveness of UK-based support interventions and services aimed at adults who have experienced or used domestic and sexual violence and abuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis – PMC
To cite: Carlisle S, Bunce A, Prina M, McManus S, Barbosa E, Feder G, Lewis NV. Effectiveness of UK-based support interventions and services aimed at adults who have experienced or used domestic and sexual violence and abuse: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2025 Mar 14;25(1):1003. doi: 10.1186/s12889-025-21891-5. PMID: 40087589; PMCID: PMC11908015.
For further information, please contact Sophie at sophie.carlisle4@nhs.net
Illustration from Adobe Photo Stock subscription
