Archives

Building better survey data on violence

 

By Sally McManus, VISION co-Deputy Director

Good policy depends on good data. While administrative data sources provide key insight, only surveys of the general population can evidence the extent to which violence is experienced, how it has changed in prevalence over time, and whether some groups are more affected – or less likely to get support – than others.  

The VISION consortium is working to improve the measurement of violence in the UK. Here we highlight examples of how VISION has advanced survey methods and generated new survey datasets to improve the evidence base on violence across the population. 

Ensuring the questions on violence get asked 

VISION research has challenged the historical reluctance to ask survey participants about their experiences of violence, with Dr Lizzie Cook arguing that the topics and people excluded from research cannot be counted or represented. VISION has worked with partners and ethics committees to improve and extend survey measurement so that it more faithfully and fully reflects the realities survivors face.  

Developing new questions on violence at work 

VISION researcher Prof Vanessa Gash has been working with the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) to pilot an entirely new set of questions on experiences of violence at work. Workplace violence has historically been poorly captured in national surveys. These new questions will make it possible to examine who is affected, in which sectors, and, because UKHLS follows the same people over time, how experiences change within individuals across their working lives. 

Building a clearer picture of economic abuse 

In a project supported by VISION, Rosa Wilson Garwood and Surviving Economic Abuse developed and administered a detailed set of survey questions on economic abuse. This work has deepened understanding of the different component parts of economic abuse and revealed important inequalities in who experiences it. There is now a national dataset available for download from the UK Data Service. It means that researchers can now examine the structure and breadth of economic abuse rather than relying on narrow proxy measures of it. 

Capturing the links between types of violence 

A new approach to the measurement of violence and abuse was developed by VISION researcher Prof Sally McManus for the 2024 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS). Rather than treating different forms of violence in isolation, the new approach spans a range of types of violence and abuse in a way that allows data users to examine how they interact, including co-occurrence and their combined relationship with mental health outcomes. The new dataset is now available for researchers to use, downloadable from the UK Data Service. 

Evidencing the long-term impacts of violence 

Dr Polina Obolenskaya co-ordinates VISION’s responses to consultations, including on survey content. We are keen to encourage the UK’s birth cohort studies and other longitudinal surveys to ask about violence and abuse. Where adopted, such questions have helped generate some of the first longitudinal data on violence and abuse, opening up new research questions about trajectories, risk, and recovery across the life course. 

Adding depth through open-text responses 

Survey approaches can be augmented through the collection of open-text responses, enabling qualitative insight to be generated at scale alongside structured measures. Research by Dr Nadia Aghtale and Fatemeh Babakhani with VISION researcher Dr Ladan Hashemi used an anonymous online survey and open-ended questions to capture women’s narratives of violence and their proposed solutions, revealing perspectives and forms of harm that are often missed in closed survey items. Their use of online data collection methods has shown how survivors from marginalised or hidden populations – often underrepresented in traditional survey methods – can also be reached via online platforms. 

Supporting researchers with designing and using surveys 

VISION has produced tools and guidance to help researchers design and analyse survey data. Dr Alexandria Innes created the VISION Risk of Bias Toolkit to inform understanding of the potential biases in different data sources, and Dr Hannah Manzur critiqued standardised measurement of ethnicity in national survey data proposing changes to the way surveys ask about and code ethnicity. Dr Niels Blom and Prof Vanessa Gash’s examined the strengths and weaknesses of different violence victimisation measures; while Prof Sian Oram and Dr Vish Bhavsar reviewed violence perpetration measures; and Dr Ladan Hashemi and Maryam Ghasemi’s make recommendations for improved measurement of adverse childhood experiences. To help those analysing survey data, Dr Niels Blom generated and archived code that helps users of the Crime Survey for England and Wales to merge multiple years of data, for better examination on lower prevalence groups in society. 

Why it matters 

Survey data isn’t perfect. But surveys provide one key part of the evidence landscape. Together, these developments contribute to a shift in the survey landscape. Violence and abuse have been excluded, undercounted or narrowly defined in national statistics. These new resources help give researchers better tools, and policymakers better evidence, to respond to how violence is patterned in the general population 

For further information about and to access the new survey datasets on violence, please contact: 

  • Vanessa Gash about the new workplace violence module on UKHLS, which will be archived for users in the future 

Illustration from Adobe Stock subscription

Upcoming webinar – Left behind: People without support after experiencing violence

 

Thursday 4 June 2026, 13:00  – 14:30, online

Join VISION for a free webinar exploring groups who can be overlooked by health services, policing, and specialist support systems after experiencing violence.

Register here: TicketTailor – 4 June VISION webinar 

Many people affected by violence do not receive the help they need, for a variety of reasons. At VISION, we’ve analysed data sources such as the Crime Survey for England and Wales to better understand these gaps. In some cases, individuals do not seek medical care from hospitals or GPs for violence-related injuries, while others choose not to report incidents to the police. There are also those indirectly affected—such as people whose loved ones have experienced serious assault—who frequently go unsupported. In addition, a significant but less visible group includes victims of intimate partner violence and serious sexual assault in England and Wales who do not disclose their experiences, particularly to specialist services.

This research offers fresh insights into the risk factors, lived experiences, inequalities, and consequences of violence among those who neither seek nor receive support—the left behind.

After the short presentations, there will be a ’roundtable’ discussion with all present to look deeper into each presentation and talk about the barriers and opportunities. We want to better identify these missing populations and underst and their behaviours for not seeking help and conversely for those that are looking for support but the services aren’t necessarily there.

We welcome anyone working in government, police, healthcare, academia, specialist services, education and the community and voluntary sector interested in and / or working in violence prevention and support for those affected.

Programme

Discussant: Professor Ravi Thiara, VISION co-Investigator, University of Warwick

Healthcare inequalities following violence: analysis of the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2010-2024, Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s University of London

  • Although healthcare is key to supporting victims of physical violence, some do not receive it despite injuries. The present research used the Crime Survey for England and Wales (combined waves 2010-2024) to identify which victims of physical violence were less likely to receive healthcare. Despite the presence of injuries, in almost a half of the incidents, victims receive no healthcare. We examined individual and violence-related factors that were associated with not receiving healthcare following violence victimisation. 

Indirect victims of violence: Mental health and the close relatives of serious assault victims in England, Professor Sally McManus, VISION co-Deputy Director, City St George’s University of London and Dr Elizabeth Cook, VISION co-Investigator, City St George’s University of London

  • Violence does not just harm direct victims; its effects ripple out through families. Drawing on a representative survey of adults in England, this study found that one in twenty adults were closely related to a victim of serious assault, and that these relatives carry a disproportionate burden of poor mental health. Even after accounting for their own histories of violence, adversity, and disadvantage, close family members face significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety, and feeling unsafe: evidence that policy must recognise, and victim services be resourced to respond to, the needs of families too. 

Reporting of violence victimisation to the police in England and Wales, Dr Polina Obolenskaya, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s University of London and Dr Annie Bunce, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s University of London

  • Who reports violence to the police, and under what circumstances, remains a critical but under‑examined question in England and Wales. Although national victimisation surveys consistently show that more than half of violent incidents never come to the attention of police, existing research is fragmented, often focused on single forms of violence (e.g., intimate partner or sexual violence), based on small studies or non-UK contexts. By mapping multiple routes through which violence does or does not come to the attention of the criminal justice system, this research advances an understanding of the “justice gap” and offers evidence with implications for policy, prevention, and victim‑survivor support. 

Disclosure of Intimate Partner Abuse and Sexual Violence to Formal Agencies and Specialist Services: Comparing Inequality Patterns, Victim Profiles, and Harms by Disclosure, Dr Hannah Manzur, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s University of London and Dr Annie Bunce

  • Our study examines the hidden population of victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) and serious sexual assault (SSA) in England and Wales who report non-disclosure of their victimisation, particularly to specialised services. Whilst evidence-building largely relies on victim-survivors’ disclosure through help-seeking pathways and interventions, the experiences and inequality patterns for victim-survivors outside of these pathways are significantly missing from evidence and support provision. In particular, specialised services support some of the most marginalised and invisible victims of violence, yet barriers to disclosure and resource limitations pose significant challenges for both data collection and support access for these groups. The nationally representative Crime Survey for England and Wales offers a unique opportunity to analyse data on IPV and SSA victim-survivors who have not contacted specialised services or disclosed to any other formal agency (inc. The police and health services). Using pooled data (2004-2019) on past-year IPV and lifetime SSA, we compare inequality patterns (by gender, ethnicity, and migrant-status) and victim profiles (including risk-factors, victimisation characteristics, and harms) of victim-survivors based on disclosure (CSEW only, formal agency, or specialised services). Here, we reveal new insights into the risk-factors, experiences, inequalities, and impacts of violence against otherwise hidden violence victims, particularly those excluded from specialised services support.

Join us at this free webinar on 4 June, 13:00 – 14:30. To book your place please register here: TicketTailor – 4 June VISION webinar 

Photograph provided via Adobe Stock subscription

Using AI to investigate publicly available documents on violence prevention

 

Artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly applied in public health, yet their use for analysing fragmented, multi-sectoral policy landscapes remains underdeveloped. Many applications have focused on service delivery, such as AI-powered chatbots, data surveillance and monitoring, and tracking social media interactions for emerging risks, with less attention paid to how AI might support policy analysis. This is especially true for the violence prevention sector, where AI is gaining traction as a solution for triaging help-seeking calls, detecting threatening messages, predicting conflict and improving police data, but not for understanding the policy landscape.

Policy responses to violence are undergoing scrutiny in the UK, coinciding with the recent publication of an updated cross-government strategy addressing violence against women and girls. This renewed focus places increased demands on researchers and policymakers to rapidly synthesise large and fragmented bodies of policy evidence spanning multiple sectors and both local and national government. Traditional approaches to policy review formed around a wholly manual approach may struggle to meet these demands within policy-relevant timeframes.

This research, an exploratory, proof-of-concept case study, aimed to describe the development and preliminary exploration of an AI-enabled tool designed to synthesise evidence from violence-related policy documents in the UK. The team was led by VISION Research Fellow Dr Darren Cook and inlcuded several members from the wider VISION consortium, Dr Elizabeth Cook, Kimberly Cullen, Professor Sally McManus, Professor Gene Feder and Professor Mark Bellis. 

For their article, Artificial intelligence in critical synthesis of public health responses to violence: A novel application to UK violence prevention policy, the team compiled a corpus of publicly available UK policy and strategy documents on violence (N = 343) through expert review, manual searches of government and third sector organisation websites, and automated web scraping.

Then, they used the corpus to train an existing AI framework and deployed it through a question-answer interface. Stakeholders working in violence prevention (academics, practitioners in specialist services and government officials) were invited to pose natural-language questions about violence policy and consider the system’s utility and the usefulness of its outputs. Their feedback indicated that the AI generated reports were well-grounded in the underlying source documents. Syntheses aligned closely with the documents in the tool, and the inclusion of document references and page-level citations supported credibility assessments. Corpus coverage statistics were considered particularly helpful when judging the robustness of responses. 

This research contributes by documenting the early application of an AI-enabled tool designed to support exploratory policy analysis. The team illustrates an emerging analytic capability and its potential role within policy-oriented research workflows. By demonstrating how a document-grounded, closed-domain AI system can be used to interrogate policy framings and identify potential siloes, this work addresses a gap in current public health applications of AI, specifically in the context of violence prevention.

To access the VISION AI tool to ask your own questions about violence prevention: VISION: Violence, Health & Society  

To download the paper: Artificial intelligence in critical synthesis of public health responses to violence: A novel application to UK violence prevention policy

To cite: Cook, D., Cook, E., Cullen, K., Zachos, K., McManus, S., Feder, G., Bellis, M., Maiden, N. Artificial intelligence in critical synthesis of public health responses to violence: A novel application to UK violence prevention policy. Science Direct (2026). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40163-026-00272-2

Illustration from Adobe Photo Stock subscription

Exploring violence, inequality, and representation

Reflections from a guest lecture

By Hannah Manzur, VISION Research Fellow

At VISION, we work with a wide range of stakeholders engaged in tackling violence and inequalities in society, from police to specialist services to national policymakers. Yet, as well as established professionals, our work also engages with students and young people through placement programmes, participatory action research, and, critically, through teaching new generations of upcoming researchers, practitioners and policymakers.  

I had the pleasure of joining City St George’s Broken Britain module for undergraduate Sociology and Criminology students as a guest lecturer to share my research and experience on a topic that sits at the heart of my research and professional journey: the relationship between violence, inequality, and the social structures that sustain them. Before joining VISION, I worked as a Policy Advisor at the European Parliament, where I saw firsthand how political decisions, data classifications, and institutional blind spots can shape people’s life chances. Combined with my academic research and civil society work, my career journey has taught me the importance of building bridges and learning lessons from across research, policy, and practice spaces to examine social issues from multiple, interlocking perspectives. Those experiences continue to inform how I teach and think about inequalities and their impact on society today. 

Why Concepts Like Marginalisation and Intersectionality Matter 

I opened the session with a warm-up exercise introducing three foundational concepts: social marginalisation, intersectionality, and vulnerabilisation. These ideas help us understand why and how certain groups of people consistently find themselves pushed to the edges of society, excluded from rights, resources, and security.  

In my policy work, these dynamics were impossible to ignore. Decisions that look ‘neutral’ on paper often deepen existing inequalities when viewed through an intersectional lens. Understanding how race, gender, class, sexuality, and migration status interlock isn’t just theoretical—it’s essential for designing policies that do not unintentionally harm the very people they claim to support. By tracing the rich history of intersectionality and how it functions across the individual, interpersonal, and institutional levels of society, students were encouraged to move past surface-level understandings of intersectionality as a buzzword and really engage with the complex ways violence is shaped by intersecting inequalities.  

Everyday Fear and the Unequal Distribution of Safety 

As well as focusing on physical violence, students engaged with wider experiences of violence, including those which directly affected them. One of the most engaging parts of the session involved asking students to reflect on their own relationship with fear and safety: 

  • How often does fear shape your everyday behaviour? 
  • Who feels protected, and by whom? 
  • And whose fears are dismissed or minimised? 

These questions were designed to bring abstract ideas of ‘fear’, ‘security’, and ‘inequality’ to life through student’s experiences navigating the world from their own individual positionalities. Bringing in key insights from my own research at VISION, we discussed the gaps and differences in how violence is understood and experienced from personal and policy perspectives. While working in Brussels, I learned how policymakers often speak about “security” in general terms, yet the lived reality of violence — and fear of violence — is anything but equally shared. Some communities experience over-policing while others receive under-protection; some voices are amplified, others silenced. Understanding this imbalance is crucial for building systems that genuinely keep people safe. 

The Problem of Representation: When Categories Don’t Fit 

From challenging perceptions of violence, we also delved into challenging understanding of ‘inequality’ and how categorising people into distinctive groups can distort our understanding of how different groups experience violence. Official classifications for data collection are often seen as a neutral, technical process. But so much is packed into these decisions. Categorising people, with all their nuance and diversity, into neat separate boxes may be important for creating useful statistics, but it can also create serious problems when these categories don’t reflect people’s lived realities. I displayed some of the categories commonly used in surveys and policy documents and asked students whether these labels reflect their identities or experiences. Students grappled with the contradictions and complexities of capturing inequalities, relating their own frustrations with being put in ‘the wrong box’ and how misrepresentation can carry serious consequences for people’s lived realities being visible and their future life chances. 

This is a conversation that deeply resonates with me. As both a researcher and policy advisory, I often struggled with how overly rigid or simplistic classifications erase nuance, flatten identities, and ultimately limit our ability to recognise and respond to inequality. Data shapes policy—but if the data categories themselves are flawed, so too are the decisions built upon them. Representation is not just symbolic. It determines who is seen, whose experiences are counted, and which forms of violence are acknowledged or ignored. 

Looking Ahead 

My goal in this lecture was not only to share academic insights, but to encourage students to question the systems around them—how they define people, whose realities they prioritise, and how they respond to social harm. Whether in policymaking or research, we cannot address violence and inequality without listening carefully to those who live at their intersections. Drawing on both my policymaking experience and new research findings from my work at VISION, I emphasised the importance of understanding how systems work from multiple perspectives, how cycles of exclusion and harm can feed into one another, and how areas of research, policy, and practice can work together to disrupt these cycles. Engaging with students through this Guest Lecture reminded me of the critical role of teaching in sharing knowledge, changing perspectives, and building critical tools for new generations to see and challenge cycles of inequalities and harm across their future careers and lived experiences.

For further information, please contact Hannah at hannah.manzur.4@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photographs from Dr Hannah Manzur

Understanding violence: The risks for migrants with rising far-right fascism

 

 

Migrant community insights on building safety

 

By Aya Khedairi, Migrants’ Rights Network

 

“My dear sister. Please do not lose hope. Better days are coming. ”
– A London workshop participant

“To all migrants: The far rights are out there with their intimidating rhetoric to break you down. You must remain strong and keep hope alive. They are targeting your mental health and they want to destroy it. You must remain resolute and courageous.”
– A London workshop participant

“Do not be afraid, and take care of yourself—for example by going for a walk, talking to someone, or reporting it to the police. My advice is to stay strong.”
– A Belfast workshop participant

Note: The above are messages of solidarity that were shared in our workshops, addressed to other migrants who may be struggling, for the purpose of strengthening community safety. 

 

In the last few years, there has been a shift in the way that migrants, including refugees and people seeking asylum, are viewed in the UK.  Rhetoric about migration has become more aggressive which has emboldened racist demonstrations in the streets and attacks on asylum accommodation.  

With the support of the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP) VISION consortium, my colleagues and I at the Migrants’ Rights Network (MRN) are co-developing a research project with migrants that maps experiences of harm and identifies community-led safety strategies. These insights will form a practical workbook featuring shared knowledge, scenarios, and messages of solidarity to all migrants in the UK. 

Our research is centred on two cities, London and Belfast, working with communities who have experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds. In Belfast, we were honoured to partner with Anaka Collective/ Participation and the Practice of Rights (PPR), who have been organising and campaigning alongside people seeking asylum since 2016 on a range of topics, including documenting and supporting community members navigating race hate. We built on the research Anaka is already doing through the Kind Economy project to reach new audiences, and further develop community strategies to stay safe. In London, focus group participants shaped the themes and priorities of a subsequent collective knowledge building workshop. 

Our project builds on and brings together MRN’s narrative work, which actively challenges disinformation about migration, while trying to better understand and document the impact of hostile language on people currently in the immigration system.  

Methodology and grounding 

The scale of multifaceted violence migrants in the UK are facing is significant, ranging from the daily indignity of a hostile immigration system that is designed to exclude and push people into poverty and precarity, ever changing immigration rules and relentless government press releases promising to make people feel less welcome in the UK and threatening to remove people.  These are on top of encounters with institutional racism in schools, healthcare and workplaces, and instances of far right violence. In light of this, we took a flexible approach to the research, inviting focus groups and workshops participants to identify key information and research gaps, and topics they would like to prioritise for collective discussion. 

As has come up through discussions, we framed ‘violence’ holistically to include violent narratives, moments of physical violence, and strain of continuous fear of violence, even when no direct violence occurs. 

In anticipation of the weight of some of the topics that might come up, the first focus group was co-designed and facilitated with a somatics practitioner, with grounding, movement and breathing exercises built into the sessions, and an optional online drop-in session the following week. The guiding principle throughout has been a return to shared experiences, mapping and extending individual and community support structures, and affirming participant agency.

Since December, we have hosted two focus groups discussions and a workshop in London, and two sessions in Belfast, with 96 people with lived experience of the asylum system / no recourse to public funds, many of whom are currently, or have previously, lived in asylum accommodation. The London workshops were conducted in English, while the Belfast workshops were primarily facilitated in Arabic, with interpretation into English. 

Key themes

The key findings affirm what we anticipated – the majority of research participants spoke to the impact of increasingly hostile narratives and moments of violence that impacted on their mental health and the ways this has shaped their behaviours. This ranged from choosing to avoid certain areas, being locked into or unable to return to asylum accommodation due to the presence of far right ‘protesters’, checking the news for incidents before leaving home, getting off the bus early and walking to avoid being associated with asylum accommodation and the ‘disgusted looks’ from other passengers, to no longer reading the news. Many participants felt reporting incidents brought little support, citing slow responses, dismissive attitudes, and limited follow-up from police or security staff.

An additional recurring theme from the workshops was the role of minors in perpetrating hate incidents against migrants, whether in schools or in public space. This complicates the ability for bystanders to intervene, and in several experiences recounted in the workshops led to reported hate incidents being dismissed as ‘teenagers being teenagers’. 

However, the overarching theme that emerged, as surmised by one participant, is that “it’s not a feeling of fear, it’s a feeling of rejection”. Others similarly shared that they don’t feel “relaxed, loved in public”, and requested a group discussion on how “others manage fear, uncertainty, or anger in these contexts… especially when formal support systems feel limited or inaccessible”.  The priority emerging from the workshops is the need for more spaces and resources to be heard, the opportunities to share common experiences and the impact these have had, and to be in community. The impact of hostile narratives on mental wellbeing and community participation is a recurring theme in MRN’s work, and one that should trigger significant reflection, accountability and resourcing from policy makers and institutions, as well as allies and the general public. 

Nevertheless, the tone of our research has remained one of anger, defiance and strength. Participants were quick to identify and decry opportunistic politicians and bad faith actors who seek to use migrants as a ‘political card’, with a strong message to politicians to “not use refugees as a tool to win elections. Do not build your success by destroying others”, messages of solidarity to each other to stay strong, and the sharing of wellbeing practices, from calling friends, journaling, or singing. 

London and Belfast workshops

While London and Belfast differ in political context, migrant workshop participants in both cities face racialised hostility. In London, incidents tended to be sporadic and public-facing, whereas in Belfast they were more concentrated, including repeated attacks on specific properties and migrant-owned businesses. As outlined in Committee on the Administration of Justices’ report 2025 report on ‘Mapping Far Right Activity in Northern Ireland’, “it is well documented that there is a particular problem of the involvement of elements of loyalist paramilitarism in racist violence and intimidation, whether sanctioned by leaders of groups or factions or not, or involving persons with paramilitary connections”. This brings additional complications in challenging far right violence and a pattern of ineffective response by the police and local authorities. 

Despite all the differences, there remain striking parallels in experiences and ways of organising that can be extrapolated nationally.  Belfast offers a key reference for the rest of the UK as a precursor of escalations in far-right violence, as well as a leading example of the necessity and strength of having established community and solidarity structures to call on, decompress and celebrate with. In discussing scenarios, the first point of call was always “call Anaka”, whether to come to the house in moments of violence, support with shopping and school runs, or just to connect. 

This research is a small but essential part of shaping MRN’s ongoing work:

MRN would like to thank the UKPRP VISION consortium for the opportunity to develop this work, and to all the participants for their generous insights and reflections. 

For questions or an interest in connecting, please contact Aya at a.khedairi@migrantsrights.org.uk

This project is supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (Violence, Health and Society; MR-VO49879/1).

Photograph from Adobe Stock subscription.

Upcoming webinar – Responding to violence in later life: Evidence, priorities, and opportunities

 

Thursday 14 May 2026, 13:00  – 14:30, online

The VISION research consortium invites you to a free webinar looking at violence and abuse experienced by those in their later years. What is the current evidence of exposure and health outcomes? What should the violence prevention research and policy priorities be for an aging population? And what are the opportunities to improve our knowledge about this issue?

The event will be chaired by Danny Tatlow, the Research and Policy Officer at Hourglass, the UK’s only charity focused on the abuse and neglect of older people. 

The presenters include:

Patterns of violence and discrimination exposure across the life course and their associations with health in later life, Dr Anastasia Fadeeva, VISION Research Fellow, City St George’s, University of London

  • Dr Fadeeva will share results from her study which used data from wave 11 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, which included information about Life History events, such as multiple types of violence and discrimination over the life course. Distinct patterns of violence and discrimination experiences were identified using the Latent Class analysis, followed by analysis of the associations between the profiles of violence experiences and health outcomes.

Listening to Older Survivors: Informing Support and Interventions for Domestic Abuse in Later Life, Dr Vasiliki Orgeta, Associate Professor, University College London

  • Dr Orgeta will present quantitative and qualitative research on psychological trauma and abuse in older women. She will explore their experiences and the perspectives of professionals supporting them, highlighting barriers such as stigma, isolation, and lack of recognition. The findings are informing a psychological advocacy intervention for older women, funded by the NIHR and led by UCL, designed to provide tailored, long-term support that promotes safety, autonomy, and wellbeing.

Later life adversities and their relationship with health outcomes: evidence from Wales, Dr Kat  Ford, Research Fellow, Bangor University and Professor Karen Hughes, Public Health Wales

Supporting older survivors of Sexual Violence- barriers and good practice, Amanda Warburton, Independent Researcher

  • Amanda will present findings from her MA in Domestic Violence and Sexual Abuse dissertation study which gathered the views of professionals who have supported older survivors of acute sexual Violence. The presentation will cover barriers to seeking support and highlight good practice to enable older survivors on their journey to recovery. 

This webinar will be of interest to stakeholders involved in violence prevention research, policy and practice who work with older people and / or are interested in lifecourse violence and abuse prevention.

Join us at this free webinar on 14 May, 13:00 – 14:30. To book your place and receive the Teams link, please email VISION_Management_Team@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Photograph provided by Age Without Limits image library

Fairness demands transparency

Doctors often speak publicly about injustice, torture, and attacks on healthcare in conflict zones and humanitarian crises. Because doctors’ voices carry significant public trust, their speech is also subject to professional regulation and employer oversight.

In recent years, complaints about doctors’ public comments on international conflicts have increased. Yet complaint volume alone is a poor guide to misconduct. Where repeated complaints trigger escalating scrutiny even when no professional or legal standard has been breached, the regulatory process itself becomes the penalty for doctors.

Doctors’ freedom of speech much be protected from punitive scrunity, a British Medical Journal (BMJ) opinion article written by Rubin Minhas, Nick Maynard, Iain Chalmers, and VISION Director Gene Feder, examines how complaint-driven escalation risks creating “punitive scrutiny”—a situation where investigation and oversight impose a heavy burden of process even in the absence of wrongdoing.

The authors argue that the solution is not weaker regulation but greater transparency. Regulators and employers should publish aggregate indicators on complaint patterns and escalation decisions to demonstrate that scrutiny is driven by evidence rather than complaint pressure.

Ensuring that lawful professional speech is protected from punitive scrutiny is essential both for doctors who speak about humanitarian harms and for maintaining public confidence in professional regulation.

To download the opinion piece: Doctors’ freedom of speech must be protected from punitive scrutiny | The BMJ

Illustration / photograph from Adobe Stock subscription

VISION responds to Parliamentary, government & non-government consultations

Consultation, evidence and inquiry submissions are an important part of our work at VISION. Responding to Parliamentary, government and non-government organisation consultations ensures that a wide range of opinions and voices are factored into the policy decision making process. As our interdisciplinary research addresses violence and how it cuts across health, crime and justice and the life course, we think it is important to take the time to answer any relevant call and to share our insight and findings to support improved policy and practice. We respond as VISION, the Violence & Society Centre, and sometimes in collaboration with others. Below are the links to our published responses and evidence from June 2022.

  1. UK Parliament – International Development Committee – Inquiry: Women, Peace and Security. Our submission was published in March 2026
  2. UK Parliament – Public Bill Committee – Call for evidence: Crime and Policing Bill. Our submission was published in 2025
  3. UK Parliament (Library) – POSTNote – Approved Work: Violence Against Women and Girls in schools and among children & young people. Two VISION reports were referenced in their POSTNote published in August 2025
  4. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Violence against Women and Girls (VAWG). Our submission was published in April 2025
  5. UK Parliament – House of Lords Select Committee on Social Mobility Policy – Call for Evidence: Exploring how education and work opportunities can be better integrated to improve social mobility across the UK. Our submission was published in 2025
  6. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: Community Cohesion. Our submission was published in February 2025
  7. UK Parliament – Call for evidence on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. Our submission was published in February 2025
  8. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Government. Our submission was published in January 2025
  9. UK Parliament – Public Accounts Committee – Inquiry: Tackling Homelessness. Our submission with Dr Natasha Chilman was published in January 2025. See the full report
  10. Home Office – Legislation consultation: Statutory Guidance for the Conduct of Domestic Homicide Reviews. Our submission was published on the VISION website in July 2024
  11. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The rights of older people. Our submission was published in November 2023
  12. UK Parliament  – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The impact of the rising cost of living on women. Our submission was published in November 2023
  13. UK Parliament – Women and Equalities Committee – Inquiry: The escalation of violence against women and girls. Our submission published in September 2023
  14. Home Office – Legislation consultation: Machetes and other bladed articles: proposed legislation (submitted response 06/06/2023). Government response to consultation and summary of public responses was published in August 2023
  15. Welsh Government – Consultation: National action plan to prevent the abuse of older people. Summary of the responses published in April 2023
  16. Race Disparity Unit (RDU) – Consultation: Standards for Ethnicity Data (submitted response 30/08/2022). Following the consultation, a revised version of the data standards was published in April 2023
  17. UK Parliament – The Home Affairs Committee – Call for evidence: Human Trafficking. Our submission was published in March 2023
  18. UN expert – Call for evidence: Violence, abuse and neglect in older people. Our submission was published in February 2023
  19. UK Parliament – The Justice and Home Affairs Committee – Inquiry: Family migration. Our submission was published in September 2022 and a report was published following the inquiry in February 2023
  20. Home Office – Consultation: Controlling or Coercive behaviour Statutory Guidance. Our submission was published in June 2022

For further information, please contact us at VISION_Management_Team@city.ac.uk

Photo by JaRiRiyawat from Adobe Stock downloads (licensed)

VISION researcher receives funding for secondary data analysis

Dr Annie Bunce, Research Fellow at VISION, received funding from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy for her application, Exploring resilience, self-empowerment and wellbeing outcomes of women referred to specialist domestic abuse counselling services.

With the support of Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa, VISION co-Deputy Director, and in collaboration with Sarah Davidge, Head of Membership, Research and Evaluation at Women’s Aid, Annie will investigate whether and how receiving counselling from a specialist domestic abuse (DA) support service is associated with change in wellbeing.

She will analyse quantitative data from national DA charity, Women’s Aid, which includes information on various aspects of victim-survivors’ wellbeing at the start, during, and end of accessing services. Data analysis will reveal whether victim-survivors who receive counselling experience greater improvements in their wellbeing than those who receive other community-based services.

Annie will also examine whether counselling may be associated with greater wellbeing gains for some groups than others, and whether change in wellbeing is associated with the type/s of abuse experienced and other services received.

The analysis will show which factors influence the effect of counselling on changes in wellbeing the most, and which wellbeing indicators are most improved following counselling.

Findings will be shared via an academic report, blog, policy briefing, webinar and conference presentations.

The research will help to improve understanding of the relationship between counselling and wellbeing in the context of DA, feed into Women’s Aid’s ongoing work to ensure they are measuring the things most important to victim-survivors when it comes to their wellbeing and promote consistency in measuring wellbeing-related outcomes across DA services more widely.

Please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk for further information.

Image from Adobe Stock subscription.

Independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s ‘Expect Respect’ programme reveals timely learning about effective schools-based health relationship intervention

 

By Dr Annie Bunce

VISION researchers Dr Annie Bunce (City St Georges University of London) and Dr Estela Capelas Barbosa (University of Bristol), alongside Dr Anna Dowrick (University of Oxford) and Dr Meredith Hawking (Queen Mary University of London), recently wrapped up an independent evaluation of Women’s Aid’s school-based educational programme, ‘Expect Respect’. The programme is aimed at children and young people (ages 4 to 18) and school staff and focuses on unhealthy relationships and the gender stereotypes that underpin them. Sessions are tailored to different age groups, with content for older students also addressing domestic abuse. It is designed to be delivered year-on-year nationally. You can find out more about the programme here: Expect Respect – Women’s Aid

The evaluation was conducted between February 2024 and May 2025, utilising mixed methods to assess the impact of the programme. Staff and student survey data from participating schools was analysed quantitatively, to assess the impact of the programme on individual and school-level behavioural outcomes and differences in student outcomes by age, gender, ethnicity or disability. Creative methods including arts-based activities and vignettes were utilised in student focus groups to facilitate engagement and expression. Interview data from staff and focus group data from students was analysed qualitatively to explore the impact of the programme on school culture, and understanding of and attitudes towards gender stereotypes, healthy relationships and domestic abuse (the latter with older students only).

Findings from quantitative analysis showed that Expect Respect generally works in terms of teaching children and young people about gender roles, healthy relationships and domestic abuse, as well as how and where to seek help. For example, we found the programme had a positive impact on understanding of gender roles among children aged 4 to 14, and on understanding of domestic abuse among older students (ages 11-18). Following the Expect Respect session, those aged 11-18 were less likely to view controlling behaviour as acceptable, and over twice as likely to say they knew who they could talk to if they were concerned about a relationship. School staff overwhelmingly reported they had a better understanding of domestic abuse and felt more confident about responding to abuse-related disclosures after the staff training than they had done beforehand, and were very satisfied with the training. Qualitative findings from staff interviews supported these survey results, with staff describing the content of the training as eye-opening and the delivery by Women’s Aid staff excellent.

Qualitative analysis revealed overall consensus with the quantitative findings in terms of the effectiveness of the Expect Respect training, as well as revealing some nuanced findings. For example, while survey results indicated a change in attitudes for most outcomes immediately following the session, qualitative findings suggested that achieving longer-term change would require consolidation of learning via regular sessions. We also found that secondary school students already had a reasonably decent understanding of the differences between healthy and unhealthy relationship behaviours prior to receiving the Expect Respect session, and felt it would have greater impact if there was a shift in emphasis from awareness raising towards practical advice about how to address unhealthy relationships and where to seek help. There was agreement among both staff and students that the programme would likely have more impact if it was more interactive, particularly the session tailored for older students.

Qualitative findings also suggested that boys found it more difficult to engage with the programme than girls, and both staff and students felt the programme was lacking in information about online relationships. Focus group data highlighted that gender stereotypes remain pervasive in young people’s thinking about heterosexual romantic relationships and are used to justify controlling behaviour. Despite this, staff were optimistic about the potential of the programme to positively impact on both students themselves, and school culture more widely, by planting a seed that they were hopeful would lead to longer term impact. Staff interviews also touched on the challenges of trying to model progressive gender stereotypes and healthy relationships to students through the programme when these were not necessarily reflected among adults in school culture. Nevertheless, staff unanimously felt that the Expect Respect sessions had helped them to identify unhealthy behaviour in relationships between students and also encouraged some students to come forward and speak to them about things they were worried about.

Recommendations

Our recommendation focus on the programme content, format and embedding learning, including:

  • Co-produce session content with young people
  • Make sessions more interactive
  • Utilise the power of personal stories and lived experience
  • Explore examples of unhealthy behaviour in friendships, families and romantic relationships
  • Focus on sparking conversations and making sessions memorable
  • Equip young people with skills to challenge unhealthy relationship behaviour, and linking with local support services
  • Continue with year-on-year delivery and provide resources/advice for schools on how to embed Expect Respect messages across the year and build on learning

The full evaluation report can be accessed here: Microsoft Word – ExpectRespect_finalreport_27Jan26

For further information, please contact Annie at annie.bunce@citystgeorges.ac.uk

Cover photo supplied from the evaluation.