Archives

Call for Frontiers in Sociology abstracts: Enhancing data collection and integration to Reduce health harms and inequalities linked to violence

Frontiers in Sociology is currently welcoming submissions of original research for the following research topic: Enhancing Data Collection and Integration to Reduce Health Harms and Inequalities Linked to Violence.

This edition is guest-edited by Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol and the UKPRP VISION research consortium), Dr Annie Bunce (City St. George’s, UoL and the UKPRP VISION research consortium), and Katie Smith (City St. George’s, UoL / University of Bristol).

Submissions should focus on any of the following:

advancing measurement approaches which emphasise cross-sector harmonisation to better evaluate interventions, address health inequalities, and reduce violence
addressing any form of violence (e.g., physical, non-physical, technology-facilitated) and its impacts on health, social and economic well-being, and marginalised groups, considering intersections of age, gender, ethnicity, disability, and religion

Research using existing datasets or primary data (quantitative or qualitative), cross-sectoral and cross-disciplinary approaches (e.g., sociology, criminology, public health), and lived experience perspectives is encouraged.

Contributions may include conceptual reviews, methodological innovations, empirical studies and systematic reviews on themes such as health inequalities, intervention effectiveness, outcome measurement, data harmonisation, and linkage strategies.

Abstracts are due by 7^th April 2025, and the deadline for manuscripts is 28^th July 2025.

For details of the different article types accepted and associated costs, please follow this link https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/for-authors/publishing-fees.

For more information and to submit an abstract or manuscript, please use the “I’m interested” link below or visit the Research Topic page here https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/67291/enhancing-data-collection-and-integration-to-reduce-health-harms-and-inequalities-linked-to-violence.

This special edition provides an excellent opportunity to advance knowledge in this critical area. Please do reach out and contact us if you have any questions: annie.bunce@city.ac.uk

Photo from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

Implications of changing domestic abuse measurement on the Crime Survey for England & Wales

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) is making a major decision this month on the future of Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) Domestic abuse measurement and monitoring.

Last year, ONS ran an experiment where half of the CSEW sample got the domestic abuse module used since 2005, and the other half got a new module that is not comparable with the previous one. ONS intend to move over entirely to the new module in the next data collection (2025/26).

Loss of the existing module has major implications: it is world-leading, uses globally comparable items, and with trend data going back to 2005. Without consistently administered core items from that module, it will no longer be possible to:

Produce long-term trends over time in domestic abuse for England and Wales.
Group a decade of survey years together to have enough cases to robustly examine domestic abuse in particular regions, minoritised groups, and by other protected characteristics for many years. This is essential for understanding inequalities in violence and subsequent service contact, and whether these are changing.

The new module is problematic for many reasons:

Is not a standardised measure, has undergone little validation or psychometric testing, and is not comparable with anything used previously or in any other country or study.
It separates data collection between former and current partner based on relationship status at the time of the interview, not at the time of abuse. This distinction creates confusion for interpretation of analysis and may be misinterpreted. The distinction is also problematic for classification of casual and other relationship types.
The overhaul of the module was intended to align measurement with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 definition, but it appears that domestic abuse as recognised by that Act cannot be identified by this module.

We urgently recommend that before losing this world-leading time series and relying on an untested, not comparable, and flawed new approach to DA measurement in England and Wales, that ONS:

Pause: continue the split-sample data collection for one more year.
Test the new approach: fully compare data collected using the new and old modules data so the validity and utility of the new measures can be evaluated appropriately, and its impact on inequalities assessed.
Publish these results publicly: and fully consult once stakeholders understand all the implications of having data collected in each way before the decision to roll out new data collection is finalised.
With this information, then compare all options: such as maintaining some of the existing questions alongside adding new coercive control items. This straightforward approach would ensure the utility of the survey for national trends (in both England and Wales) and analysis of inequalities and minoritised groups, while also improving the measurement of coercive control.

We urge others who feel similarly to contact ONS at CrimeStatistics@ons.gov.uk or contact us at VISION_Management_Team@city.ac.uk if you would like to discuss.

Note that ONS is planning a raft of further changes with similar implications for trends and analysis of minoritised groups, including:

Removal of the sexual victimisation module from next data collection (2025/26), with redevelopment at some future date.
Removal and redevelopment of the nature of partner abuse questions, which cover DA survivors service use and police contact and are essential to understanding whether some groups are underserved by services.

These will further undermine continuity of data for trends and the ability to analyse minoritised groups or by protected characteristics.

For researchers interested in combining CSEW waves to enable robust analysis of inequalities by protected characteristics and for minoritised groups, VISION researcher Niels Blom has published syntax: https://vision.city.ac.uk/news/new-possibilities-created-by-crime-survey-wave-integration/.

Photo from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

Addressing abuse in teenage relationships

This VISION Policy Brief highlights emerging findings and policy recommendations from ongoing research and stakeholder engagement into abuse in teenage relationships carried out by the UKPRP VISION consortium.

Abuse—whether physical, emotional, or sexual—within young people’s relationships is often overlooked in both research and policy. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) finds that young women aged 16 to 19 are more likely to experience domestic abuse than any other age group. Despite this high prevalence, this age group is less likely to be referred to support services. Furthermore, the CSEW does not cover individuals under the age of 16, leaving a major gap in understanding of prevalence.

Key findings:

Lack of consistent terminology and recognition – various terms are used to describe abuse in teenage relationships, including ‘teen dating violence’, ‘adolescent domestic abuse’, ‘teenage relationship abuse’ and ‘youth intimate partner violence’. Both the workshop with young people and the roundtables identified that young people generally do not associate the behaviours they experience with any of these terms and are more likely to use language like ‘toxic relationships’.
Very limited UK research on risk and protective factors for under 16s – our rapid review found that in the last 10 years there was only one UK academic study that looked into risk and protective factors for abuse in teenage relationships for those aged under 16.
Importance of schools and communities – unlike adult domestic abuse, which is largely experienced in private, abuse experienced in teenage relationships is more likely to occur outside of the home, especially within schools.
Very difficult to measure extent of issue – due to the current Home Office definition of domestic abuse there is very limited and consistently recorded administrative data collected on those under 16 who are experiencing abuse.
Need to take a more radical review of systems – our discussion highlighted the difficulty of addressing abuse in teenage relationships within the current systems.

Recommendations for change:

Develop a national strategy – prevention and early intervention
Explore support for young people – victims and those carrying out harmful behaviours
Commission research into under 16s – including those with lived experience and taking a whole systems approach
Improve measurement in under 16s
Agree terminology and produce an associated education programme

To download the policy briefing: VISION Policy Brief: Addressing Abuse in Teenage Relationships

To cite: Weir, Ruth; Barrow-Grint, Katy (2025). VISION Policy Brief: Addressing Abuse in Teenage Relationships. City, University of London. Report. https://doi.org/10.25383/city.26539906.v1

For further information, please contact: Ruth at ruth.weir@city.ac.uk

How much violence is there?

This VISION Policy Brief proposes improvements to the definitions and measurement of violence using the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), in order to more fully capture different aspects of violent crime, including violence against women and girls (VAWG). The briefing is aimed at researchers, national statistics offices, and others involved in violence research and policy. It draws on a paper recently published in The British Journal of Criminology, Definition and measurement of violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales.

Key findings:

The current definition of violent crime excludes key types: The Office for National Statistics (ONS) headline measure of ‘violent crime’ currently excludes sexual violence, robberies, threats of violence, and many incidents of violence where criminal damage was also involved.
A broader definition would better capture scale, harm and inequalities: We use a broader measure of violence that includes these currently excluded forms of violence. This broader measure not only reveals a higher prevalence of victimisation in the population as a whole, it also reveals hidden inequalities. Women are more likely than men to experience sexual violence and threats of violence: excluding these from current estimates leads to rates of violence in women, especially domestic violence, being underestimated. The proportion of people physically and emotionally harmed by violence is also better estimated using this broader definition, particularly affecting estimates for women.

Recommendation for change:

National statistics on violence in England and Wales should show violence estimates using a broader definition of violence alongside violent crime statistics to give a more comprehensive overview of violence and its societal impact.

To download the policy briefing, please see below. To download the paper upon which the policy recommendation is based, please see: Definition and Measurement of Violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales: Implications for the Amount and Gendering of Violence | The British Journal of Criminology | Oxford Academic

The citation for the paper: Davies, E., Obolenskaya, P., Francis, B., Blom, N., Phoenix, J., Pullerits, M., and Walby, S. (2024), Definition and Measurement of Violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales: Implications for the Amount and Gendering of Violence, The British Journal of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azae050

VISION Policy Briefing for downloading:

Violence Measurement_VISION Policy Briefing Download

Definition and measurement of violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales

The definitions and methodology used in surveys to measure violence have implications for its estimated volume and gendered distribution. The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) uses quite a narrow definition of ‘violence against the person’ which excludes crimes which are arguably violent in nature.

VISION researchers Elouise Davies, Polina Obolenskaya, Brian Francis and Niels Blom worked with colleagues Jessica Phoenix, Merili Pullerits and Sylvia Walby to expand the CSEW’s measurement of violence to include threats, robbery, sexual violence and mixed violence/property crimes as violence.

The team investigates the implications of using an expanded definition of violence on the subsequent estimates of interpersonal violence and its distribution (the proportion of incidents of violence committed towards women, and the proportion of incidents that are committed by domestic relations rather than acquaintances or strangers). Additionally, they investigate how the expanded definition of violence shows an increased health burden of violence by investigating the number of injuries and the number and proportion of victims that are strongly emotionally impacted.

This results in a shift in the gender distribution of violence, with a higher proportion of violence against women (from 39% to 58%) and by domestic perpetrators (from 29% to 32%).

Impacts of violence – injuries and emotional harm – are also affected by the change in definition and disproportionally so for women.

For further information, please see: Definition and Measurement of Violence in the Crime Survey for England and Wales: Implications for the Amount and Gendering of Violence | The British Journal of Criminology | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

Or please contact Elouise at e.davies4@lancaster.ac.uk

Illustration licensed by Adobe Photo Stock

Uncovering ‘hidden’ violence against older people

By Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow

Violence against older people is often overlooked. As a society, we often associate violence with young people, gangs, unsafe streets, and ‘knife crime’. However, violence also takes place behind front doors, perpetuated by families and partners, and victims include older people.

Some older people may be particularly vulnerable due to poorer physical health, disability, dependence on others, and financial challenges after retirement. Policy rarely addresses the safety of this population, with even health and social care professionals sometimes assuming that violence does not affect older people. For example, doctors may dismiss injuries or depression as inevitable problems related to old age and miss opportunities to identify victims (1). In addition, older people may be less likely to report violence and abuse because they themselves may not recognise it, do not want to accuse family members, or out of fear (2).

Given victims of violence often remain invisible to health and social services, police, or charities, the most reliable statistics on violence often come from national surveys such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) conducted by the Office for National Statistics. However, for a long time the CSEW self-completion – the part of the interview with the most detail on violence and abuse – excluded those aged 60 or more, and only recently extended to include those over 74. Some national surveys specifically focus on older people, but these ask very little about violence and abuse. Additionally, despite people in care homes or other institutional settings experiencing a higher risk of violence, it can be challenging to collect information from them. Therefore, many surveys only interview people in private households, which excludes many higher-risk groups.

We need a better grasp of the extent and nature of violence and abuse in older populations. First, reliable figures can improve the allocation of resources and services targeted at the protection of older people. Second, better statistics can identify the risk factors for experiencing violence in later life and the most vulnerable groups.

In the VISION consortium, we used the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS 2014) to examine violence in people aged 60 and over in England (3). While we found that older people of minoritised ethnic backgrounds are at higher risk of violence (prevalence of 6.0% versus 1.7% in white people in 12 months prior to the survey), more research needs to be done to distinguish the experiences of different ethnic groups. Our research also showed that loneliness and social isolation were strongly related to violence in later life. Older people may experience social isolation due to limiting health issues or economic situations, and perpetrators can exploit this (4). Moreover, isolation of victims is a tool commonly used by perpetrators, especially in cases of domestic abuse (5). Knowing about these and other risk factors can help us better spot and protect potential victims.

Additionally, more needs to be learnt about the consequences of life course exposure to violence for health and well-being in later life. This is still a relatively unexplored area due to limited data and a lack of reporting from older victims and survivors. It is sometimes more difficult to establish the link between violence and health problems because the health impacts are not always immediate but can accumulate or emerge in later life (6). Also, as people develop more illnesses as they age, it is more challenging to distinguish health issues attributable to violence. Therefore we are also using the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) to examine temporal relationships between lifetime violence exposure and health in older age.

Dr Sophie Carlisle, Evaluation Researcher at Health Innovation East Midlands, and former VISION researcher, also reflects on violence against older people and includes an analysis of our study’s strengths and weaknesses in her 10 December 2024 blog on the Mental Elf website, Violence against older people – linked to poor mental health #16DaysOfActivism2024. Sophie highlighted how the study reported that violence against older people is often perpetrated by an intimate partner and is strongly associated with poor mental health.

In an inclusive society, every member should be able to lead a life where they feel safe and respected. We are delighted that the CSEW has removed the upper age limit to data collection on domestic abuse, which is one step towards making older victims and survivors heard. Continuous work on uncovering the ‘hidden’ statistics and examining the effects of intersectional characteristics on violence is crucial in making our society more inclusive, equal, and safe for everyone. For example, one VISION study (7) has demonstrated that the risks of repeated victimisation in domestic relationships had opposite trends for men and women as they aged. We are committed to support the Hourglass Manifesto to end the abuse of older people (8), and are willing to provide decision makers with evidence to enable a safer ageing society.

For further information, please see: Violence against older people and associations with mental health: A national probability sample survey of the general population in England – ScienceDirect

Or please contact Anastasia at anastasia.fadeeva @city.ac.uk

Footnotes

1. SafeLives U. Safe later lives: Older people and domestic abuse, spotlights report. 2016.
2. Age UK. No Age Limit: the blind spot of older victims and survivors in the Domestic Abuse Bill. 2020.
3. Fadeeva A, Hashemi L, Cooper C, Stewart R, McManus S. Violence against older people and mental health: a probability sample survey of the general population. forthcoming.
4. Tung EL, Hawkley LC, Cagney KA, Peek ME. Social isolation, loneliness, and violence exposure in urban adults. Health Affairs. 2019;38(10):1670-8.
5. Stark E. Coercive control. Violence against women: Current theory and practice in domestic abuse, sexual violence and exploitation. 2013:17-33.
6. Knight L, Hester M. Domestic violence and mental health in older adults. International review of psychiatry. 2016;28(5):464-74.
7. Weir R. Differentiating risk: The association between relationship type and risk of repeat victimization of domestic abuse. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. 2024;18:paae024.
8. Hourglass. Manifesto A Safer Ageing Society by 2050. 2024.

Photo from licensed Adobe Stock library

Presentations from the 2024 VISION Annual Conference

The presentations from the 3rd VISION annual conference are now available for downloading.

The event was held at Kings College London, Strand campus, on 11 June. The theme was Violence prevention in research and policy: Bridging silos. Keynote speakers, Dr Claudia Garcia-Moreno (World Health Organisation) and Professor Katrin Hohl (City, UoL) considered the changes needed for effective violence prevention from the perspectives of health and justice. Three symposiums highlighted interdisciplinary research from the VISION consortium and partners on:

– Violence against older people: Challenges in research and policy;

– Learning across statutory review practices: Origins, ambitions and future directions; and

– Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace

Approximately 80 academics, central and local government officials, practitioners, and voluntary and community sector organisations attended from a range of health and crime / justice disciplines.

All the slides that could be shared are available below. Please feel free to download.

Photo caption: Symposium 3, ‘Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace’. From left to right: Chair, Dr Olumide Adisa (University of Suffolk) and Panellists Dr Vanessa Gash (City, UoL), Dr Alison Gregory (Alison Gregory Consulting), Catherine Buglass (Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse) and Dr Niels Blom (City, UoL)

Professor Gene Feder, VISION Director – Welcome – 1 download

Welcome_VISION-Annual-Conference-2024 Download

Keynote Speaker, Dr Claudia Garcia-Moreno – Violence against women: From research to policy and action – 1 download

Keynote-Speaker-2_Research-to-policy-and-action_2 Download

Symposium 1 – Violence against older people: Challenges in research and policy – 4 downloads (Hourglass, Office for National Statistics, Public Health Wales & VISION)

Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_Hourglass Download

Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_ONS Download

Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_PHW Download

Symposium-1_Older-people-and-violence_VISION Download

Symposium 2 – Learning across statutory review practices: Origins, ambitions and future directions – 1 download

Symposium-2_Statutory-Review-Practice_All Download

Symposium 3 – Responding to experiences and expressions of interpersonal violence in the workplace – 3 downloads (Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, and 2 from VISION)

Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_VISION Download

Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_EIDA Download

Symposium-3_Violence-and-the-workplace_VISION-2 Download

Measuring ethnicity and the implications for violence inequalities

The question of how we measure, categorise, and represent ethnicity poses a growing challenge for identifying and addressing ethnic inequalities. Conceptual critiques and qualitative studies highlight the complexities and challenges of measuring ethnicity, yet there remains a lack of quantitative studies investigating the implications of these complexities for inequalities research.

VISION researchers, Hannah Manzur, Niels Blom, and Estela Capelas Barbosa, address this gap by scrutinizing methodological processes and analysing the implications of measurement and categorisation in the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), critiquing the UK’s standardised measurement of ethnicity in national survey data and government statistics.

Based on their comparative quantitative analysis of standardised ethnicity categories and regional origins and their evaluation of the CSEW and census’ methodologies, they propose an alternative categorisation of ethnicity, focusing on the ‘Mixed’, ‘Asian’, and ‘Latinx/Hispanic’ ethnic groups.

Using adjusted crosstabulations and logistic regression models, they found variations in ethnic patterns of violence victimisation based on standardised measures and their alternative recategorisation, particularly relating to the distinction between ‘Asian’ sub-groups, the recategorisation of ‘Mixed’ ethnicities, and the inclusion of ‘Latinx/Hispanic’ as a distinctive ethnic group.

Their findings reveal valuable insights into the implications of ethnic categorisation for understanding violence inequalities, with significant implications for further policy and research areas.

For further information please see: Social Sciences | Free Full-Text | (Mis)Representing Ethnicity in UK Government Statistics and Its Implications for Violence Inequalities (mdpi.com)

Photo from licensed Adobe Stock library

Cost effectiveness of primary care training & support programme for secondary prevention of DVA

Recent research evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety plus (IRIS+) intervention compared with usual care using feasibility data derived from seven UK general practice sites.

IRIS+ is a training and support programme for clinicians working in primary care to aid in their identification of those experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence / abuse (DVA).

VISION Deputy Director, Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa and Director, Professor Gene Feder, worked with their University of Bristol colleagues to conduct a cost–utility analysis, a form of economic evaluation comparing cost with patient-centred outcome measures, as a means to measure the benefit obtained from the treatment or intervention.

The specific cost-utility analysis they conducted assessed the potential cost-effectiveness of IRIS+ which assists primary care staff in identifying, documenting and referring not only women, but also men and children who may have experienced DVA as victims, perpetrators or both.

The analysis showed that in practices that adopted the IRIS+ intervention, a savings of £92 per patient occurred. The incremental net monetary benefit was positive (£145) and the IRIS+ intervention was cost-effective in 55% of simulations (when the model is repeated with different assumptions).

The research team therefore concluded that the IRIS+ intervention could be cost-effective in the UK from a societal perspective though there are large uncertainties. To resolve these the team will conduct a large trial with further economic analysis.

For further information please see: Primary care system-level training and support programme for the secondary prevention of domestic violence and abuse: a cost-effectiveness feasibility model | BMJ Open

Or contact Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa at e.capelasbarbosa@bristol.ac.uk

Photo by Marcelo Leal on Unsplash

VISION Research Fellows presenting at Crime Surveys User Conference 2024

This event is in the past.

VISION researchers Dr Polina Obolenskaya, Dr Elouise Davies and Dr Niels Blom will present at the Crime Surveys User Conference 2024 on 6 February 2024 in Islington, London.

The event brings data producers and data users together to share updates on the development of the surveys and to showcase research that is being carried out using the data. It is organised by the UK Data Service in collaboration with the Office for National Statistics, Scottish Government and the Home Office.

Polina, Elouise and Niels will each discuss the findings of their recent research using the Crime Survey for England and Wales:

Polina – The rise, fall and stall of violence in England and Wales: How have risks of violence changed for groups in the population?
Elouise – When there’s more than one assailant: Understanding variation in victims’ needs
Niels – New Crime Survey for England and Wales integration code: Impact for investigating
rare events such as different intimate partner perpetrator types

For further information on the conference, please see: Crime Surveys User Conference 2024.

For further information on their research, please contact Polina, Elouise or Niels at: polina.obolenskaya@city.ac.uk; e.davies4@lancaster.ac.uk; or niels.blom@city.ac.uk

Photo by Headway on Unsplash