literature review on domestic violence during lockdown

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Mini review article, gender-based violence during covid-19 pandemic: a mini-review.

• 1 Amity Institute of Behavioural and Allied Sciences, Amity University, Lucknow, India
• 2 Department of Psychology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, India

Purpose: Quarantine is necessary to reduce the community spread of the Coronavirus disease, but it also has serious psychological and socially disruptive consequences. This is known as the quarantine paradox that also includes a surge in the cases of gender-based violence. However, there exists a clear gap of rigorous literature exploring the issue. Hence, the current paper attempts to understand gender-based violence as an aspect of the COVID-19 lockdown. It reviews the pattern of rise in gender violence cases and the resultant psychological and social issues and attempts to create awareness by initiating a discourse urging for change in the response towards the victims of gender-based violence. The paper further attempts to suggest measures to mitigate the issues arising out of gender violence during quarantine.

Method: The current paper reviews the literature on the rise of gender-based violence in the times of current and past pandemics. The paper also reviews the published reports in scientific as well as mass media literatures focusing on the rise of gender-based violence during the imposed lockdown, its consequences, and the measures taken by the governments to tackle the issue.

Results: The present review reveals that similar to the previous pandemics and epidemics, there has been an alarming rise in the incidents of gender-based violence during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present review further reveals various other risk factors that have been found attributive to the surge of gender-based violence such as economic insecurity and alcohol consumption. The results of the review indicate that despite its global prevalence, gender-based violence has been one of the most neglected outcomes of pandemics. Moreover, the legislatures and services available for such victims are often inadequate and, thus, worsening their situation.

Conclusion: Pandemic situations have been found to be associated with advancements in the medical field. However, a part and parcel of this situation is the age-old practice of quarantine that has several negative outcomes. This also includes a surge in gender-based violence that raises serious concerns about the safety of women. As the legislatures provided and measures taken by the governments are falling short in dealing with the issue, a number of non-government organizations are stepping up to provide necessary services to these victims.

Pandemic and Gender-Based Violence

Quarantine has been an effective measure of controlling infection since the 14th century. The medieval societies were able to establish a link between the emergence of symptoms and the duration of time. The origin of the term is rooted in the health practice related to plague back in 1377 AD when ships were isolated for 30 days and land travelers for 40 days in the sea port of Ragusa ( 1 ). However, the earliest record of quarantine can be traced back to 532 AD ( 2 ). Since then, the practice of quarantine has been utilized to reduce the spread of contagious diseases. With the declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic, there is a mounting pressure on the governments to take measures to reduce the community spread of the disease. Hence, in the absence of a vaccine or effective treatment, going into quarantine for varying periods of time is being adopted as an option by most countries. This has led to a drastic alteration in the day-to-day lifestyle of the individuals. Most of the work is being done from home, and efforts are being made to maintain social distance. These measures are crucial to the protection of healthcare systems. However, just like one coin has two sides, the positive efforts to tackle COVID-19 have negative consequences associated with them. These negative consequences include the risk of losing jobs, economic vulnerabilities, and psychological health issues resulting from isolation, loneliness, and uncertainty, among others. This can be regarded as the quarantine paradox. History has witnessed the weakening of the states in the face of pandemics and outbreaks. The Antonine plague of 161 AD had economically weakened the Roman Empire ( 3 ). The Byzantine empire too had suffered weakening of the economic infrastructure during the Justinian plague ( 4 ). Past researches indicate that the risk of serious psychological consequences increases with the increase in the duration of the quarantine ( 5 ). According to Hawryluck et al. ( 6 ) and Reynolds et al. ( 7 ), a longer duration of quarantine was found to be associated with increased symptoms of PTSD. Lee et al. ( 8 ) reported that the risk of developing PTSD symptoms persisted despite home quarantine. Another downside of quarantine is the increase in cases of gender-based violence that is frequently ignored ( 9 ). Gender-based violence is a form of violence targeting a person based on the gender of an individual. It is a complex phenomenon that includes combinations of sexual, physical, and emotional violence and neglect or deprivation ( 10 ). CEDAW (Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women) has defined gender-based violence as a form of violence that disproportionately affects women. Some common forms of gender-based violence include sexual violence, violence against women, domestic violence, and harmful traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation. For the present paper, the term gender-based violence has been used to denote different aspects of domestic violence against women.

According to an article published in a national newspaper of India, The Hindu, the National Commission for Women (NCW) recorded a twofold rise in the cases of gender violence ( 11 ). Several researches indicate a rise in family violence and sexual violence during and after any large crisis or disaster [e.g., ( 12 , 13 )].

Relation Between Gender-Based Violence and Crisis Situations

Violence has generally been found to increase in the face of pandemics. For instance, Rose ( 14 ) reported an erosion of social norms and increase in violence in Bologna, Italy, in the context of plague and natural disaster. According to UNFPA ( 15 ), pandemics often lead to breakdowns of social infrastructures thus compounding the already existing weaknesses and conflicts. As a result, the existing gender inequality is worsened by the pandemic situations. It also increases the exposure of children and women to harassment and sexual violence when they try to procure necessities such as water, food, and firewood. Several researches report that gender-based violence is more prevalent in HIV hyper-endemic countries [e.g., ( 10 , 16 )]. Researchers have observed a link between the prevalence of HIV epidemic and gender-based violence in India as well ( 17 , 18 ). A report about rapid gender analysis on COVID-19 by CARE and International Rescue had expected gender-based violence to rise amid pandemic and quarantines. Hence, the report had also recommended to prepare and build on existing services for the victims of gender-based violence. The report further emphasized on the need to strengthen online services to provide psychological support and legal aid services ( 19 ). According to Menendez et al. ( 20 ), often women do not have rights over their sexual choices. Consequently, they experience sexual violence and the risk of exposure to the virus through the male carrier. Okur ( 21 ) emphasized that sexual and gender-based violence increases during crisis situations due to breakdown in law. Thus, the victims often do not receive the adequate support, and the perpetrators get exempted from punishment. Also, according to the WHO global ethics unit ( 22 ), gender roles affect all aspects of an endemic including interpersonal violence. It also emphasized the need of various services to minimize the risk of violence when people are quarantined at home or in institutions. Hence, the present research shall focus on the gender-based violence, because despite being a global phenomenon, it is highly underreported due to stigma and social pressures. Moreover, there is a lack of studies focusing on the prevalence of gender-based violence during disasters. Consequently, those responding to disasters are often not aware of the possibility of surge in the cases of gender-based violence. Therefore, they often do not prepare to deal with, thereby making the situation worse. In fact, according to John et al. ( 23 ), these are the lessons never learnt. Therefore, we have a limited understanding toward how the victims of gender-based violence respond to the situation of the current pandemic. Hence, the present research reviews the linkages between gender violence and pandemic and also attempts to identify the potential policy responses to moderate the issue.

In the past, crises have been linked with a surge in cases of gender violence ( 24 – 27 ). A surge in intimate partner violence was observed during other disasters such as Earthquake in Haiti in 2007, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, and Eruption of Mount Saint Helens in the 1980s due to unemployment, family, and other stressors ( 28 ). Even during the South Asian Tsunami of 2004, a surge in gender-based violence was observed. Fisher ( 29 ) emphasized that in the aftermath of Tsunami, several incidents of violence against women and sexual assault were reported in Sri Lanka. According to researchers, pandemics cannot be considered an exception to this ( 9 ). Sikira and Urassa ( 30 ) reported an increase in wife battering in the face of the HIV pandemic due to suspicion of extramarital affairs. Recent outbreaks such as Ebola, Cholera, Zika, and Nipah have also led to an increase in the cases of domestic violence ( 31 ). During the Ebola virus outbreak, women and girls were especially vulnerable to violence because of the inability to escape their abuser. Moreover, the victims of violence were not recognized and were often left unattended ( 32 ). According to Yasmin ( 33 ), cases of rape, violence against women, and sexual assault also increased during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.

There are a number of reasons for such increase in gender violence cases. Arthur and Clark ( 34 ) also identified economic dependence as a cause for domestic violence. During quarantine, as more women were in informal jobs and got laid off, this led to them experiencing a greater impact as they became economically dependent on their male counterparts. According to Alon et al. ( 35 ), lesser women than men are in telecommutable jobs, thus making it difficult for them to adapt to the changing conditions. This increased economic dependence not only increases their risk of gender-based violence but also makes it difficult to leave their perpetrators. Pandemics like influenza, swine flu, and SARS have been found to result in psychological issues such as anxiety, substance abuse, PTSD, and sleep disturbances that often tend to continue even after the pandemic ( 36 , 37 ). According to a research by Zhang et al. ( 38 ), increased prevalence of depressive symptoms could be observed among COVID 19 patients. A significant rise in anxiety levels of the COVID-19 patients as well as the general public was reported by the findings of the study. In return, these mental health issues and related factors such as alcoholism tend to lead to a rise in gender-based violence ( 39 – 42 ). Several researchers have reported that the sales of alcohol have skyrocketed during pandemic [e.g., ( 43 , 44 )]. Polakovic ( 43 ) reported a rise of 55% in the consumption of alcoholic beverages in the United States. Evidence also suggests that increase in male migration reduces gender violence due to reduced exposure to the potential perpetrators ( 45 ). When under quarantine, women individuals are in close proximity to the male members with limited to no freedom to go out, thus leading to an increase in gender violence at home. Pandemics also increase economic vulnerabilities because of the rise in unemployment, or, in the risk of unemployment. Several studies link economic insecurities to increased gender-based violence. Economic insecurity has been found to be linked to adopting poor coping strategies that are inclusive of substance abuse ( 46 – 48 ). These, in turn, have been found to be associated with various forms of gender-based violence ( 49 ). However, interesting gender differences can be observed in this context. Bhalotra et al. ( 50 ) reported that increase in male unemployment was associated with increase in interpersonal violence against women where an increase in women unemployment was associated with a decrease in violence against them. According to Schneider et al. ( 51 ), such an outcome could be because of male backlash resulting from feelings of emasculation and inadequacy at not being able to serve the role of a breadwinner of the family. According to Bradbury-Jones and Isham ( 52 ), it could also be because of the distorted power dynamics at home resulting in abuse and gender violence that escapes the scrutiny of anyone from outside. The problem of gender-based violence during the pandemic further worsens because the police are unable to tackle the issue of gender-based violence. According to a report, gender-based violence in Liberia could have also increased because the police were overwhelmed and unable to defend the victims ( 53 ). Richards ( 54 ) reported that economic strain, substance abuse, and isolation all tend to increase the risk of domestic violence. Based on the above literature review, it is evident that understanding of gender violence is a key priority in order to achieve gender equality globally.

Past researches have established a strong link between different forms of gender-based violence and psychological issues. Thus, it is all the more important to tackle the issue of rising gender-based violence in the face of COVID-19. It has been reported that women who experience one form of gender-based violence are more likely to experience other forms of gender violence ( 55 ). According to Campbell ( 56 ), intimate partner violence is associated with PTSD, depression, chronic pain, sexually transmitted diseases, etc. Woods ( 57 ) reported that PTSD symptoms could be observed in both abused and post-abused women. Jackson et al. ( 58 ) established a link between traumatic brain injury and woman battering. They reported that the frequency of being hit in the head was significantly correlated with severe cognitive symptoms. Walker ( 59 ) reported that victims of domestic violence experience a sequelae of psychological symptoms that include anxiety, depression, avoidance, reexperiencing of traumatic events, and hyper-arousal.

COVID-19 and Gender Violence

COVID-19 seems to be similar to the pandemics in the past since this too has resulted in an increase in cases of domestic violence. According to Bradbury-Jones and Isham ( 52 ), the lockdown imposed to deal with COVID-19 has granted greater freedom to abusers. Several media reports indicate a surge in cases of domestic violence in various countries. According to Kagi ( 60 ), though a drop was observed in the overall crime rates in Australia, the domestic abuse rates increased by 5%. Some charities in Australia also raised concerns about COVID-19 misinformation being used by the offenders to further control and abuse the victims of domestic violence ( 61 ). Allen-Ebrahimian ( 62 ) reported that China witnessed a three-fold increase in the cases of domestic violence after imposing quarantine. Different states in the United States also reported an increase of about 21–35% in domestic violence ( 63 ). Even the UK has been facing concerns due to rising family violence. There has also been an apparent increase in the number of domestic homicides ( 64 ). The Refuge website recorded an increase of 150% in the calls about domestic abuse ( 65 ). An article in The Indian Express draws attention to the fact that a vast majority of people in Mumbai do not have household water connections. With rising summer temperatures, people spending more time at homes during lockdowns, and emphasis on handwashing, there comes the need for household water. Consequently, many women are turning to underground water market operating under the cloak of darkness. Moreover, women have been spending more time queuing up for water and often approach the market in the wee hours of mornings where they often face verbal and sexual harassment ( 66 ). Despite this increase in incidents of gender-based violence, Jagori, a Delhi-based NGO, has witnessed a drop in calls on its helpline numbers by 50%. This could be because of the fear of getting discovered by their offenders at home according to Jaya Velankar, Director Jagori ( 67 ). According to Bradbury-Jones and Isham ( 52 ), the lockdown imposed to deal with COVID-19 has granted greater freedom to abusers. It has become easier for the abusers to enforce control tactics by limiting the access of the victims to phones, internet, and other people. van Gelder et al. ( 68 ) also emphasized that the lockdown limits familiar support options. In an article published by BU today ( 69 ), Rothman who is a professor of Community Health Sciences raised concerns about declaring sale of guns to be essential services in some states of the United States. This increases the likelihood of fatal interpersonal violence. Fielding ( 70 ) pointed out that the victims of abuse may even be scared to visit a hospital for treatment of their injuries due to the fear of contracting the COVID-19 disease.

Tackling Gender-Based Violence During COVID-19

The first step to tackle the issue of rising gender violence in the times of pandemic is the acknowledgment of the issue, which has been ignored during the pandemics in the past ( 71 ). Campbell ( 28 ) emphasizes that expanding community partnerships and spreading awareness about the importance of reporting incidents of abuse are crucial to reducing the number of such cases. According to Bradbury and Isham ( 52 ), one way to deal with the issue of domestic violence is by constantly asking if people feel safe at home. However, it is very crucial that the people asking these questions have the time and emotional resources. It is often possible that the victims may communicate in subtle and indirect ways, which can be easily missed. They also emphasize the importance of online and telephonic services for those seeking therapeutic interventions, counseling, or any other kind of support. Gerster ( 72 ) emphasizes that neighbors of families with violence can also help to reduce domestic violence by initiating conversation with them. Researchers also emphasize the need to train healthcare workers to recognize the signs of violence to tackle the issue of gender-based violence ( 73 , 74 ). Van Gelder et al. ( 68 ) emphasize the role of the media to raise awareness about the issue of gender violence during pandemic as well as about the practices that can replace the conventional in-person support. These may include offering supportive statements, promoting safety guidelines via advertisements, bystander approaches, and accessing help on behalf of the victim after obtaining consent. They also call for increase in service availability and funding for protection needs and shelters during quarantine. Hatchimonji et al. ( 71 ) called for coupling physical distancing with social support to ensure that it does not exacerbate gender violence. There is also a strong need to strengthen the helpline services which victims of gender violence can utilize without alerting their offenders. Antonio Guteres, the United Nations Secretary General, also emphasized the need for the countries to prioritize support by setting up emergency warning systems for individuals facing family violence ( 75 ). Mazza et al. ( 76 ) have emphasized on the need of a trained multidisciplinary staff including psychologists, psychiatrists, and social and legal services to prevent acts of domestic violence and ensure accurate assessment of various domains of the abuse.

Some countries have in fact tried to adapt to the situation of quarantine resulting from COVID-19 by implementing several practices to reduce gender-based violence. For instance, France has set up warning systems at groceries and pharmacies to enable victims of gender and family violence to alert the authorities ( 77 ). They may also alert the staff about the required help by using code words that have been introduced. Domestic Violence Resource Center Australia has also issued specific guidance for family and friends to support those in family violence situations ( 78 ). UNFPA (United Nations Population Fund) and UN Women have published guidelines that can be utilized by various governments to include gender considerations into their responses ( 15 , 79 ). National Domestic Violence Hotline, USA, has also been offering service via online texting chat so that victims of domestic violence can seek help ( 80 ). In Beijing, a judicial court has been using cloud-based platforms and online court hearings to deal with cases of gender-based violence in the times of pandemic ( 81 ). Nair and Banerjee ( 82 ) emphasized the need for the combined efforts of health professionals with print and digital media to avoid misinformation and educate people about abuse prevention.

In a conversation with staff of AALI (Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiative, Lucknow, India), it was revealed that the actions being taken by the authorities in India are insufficient to deal with the issue of gender violence during COVID-19. NGOs have requested to publicize the phone numbers of the protection officers by sticking them outside their offices to make them more accessible to the victims. The AALI staff member also expressed concern over a lack of sense of urgency when dealing with domestic violence cases under lockdown. The effectiveness of the helplines is reduced if it is not followed by necessary action and is merely recorded as data. The National Commission of Women (NCW), India and NGOs such as Jagori have compiled information pertaining to the One Stop Centers, protection officers, and other support services on their websites. Aman: global Voices for Peace in the Home, which is a network of over 146 organizations and individuals working on the issue of violence against women across 18 states in India, has written a letter to the National Commission of Women, India with collective recommendations to respond to the situation of women facing violence under lockdown. The recommendations include making the helpline numbers such as 181 and 1,091 functional; publicizing the support services and resources available; utilizing Nirbhaya funds (Nirbhaya Fund is a corpus fund of Indian rupee 10 billion created by the Government of India to support the activities and initiatives of the government and NGOs working towards protecting the dignity and ensuring safety of women in India.) to increase the availability of resources available to NGOs offering legal aid, counseling, and shelter to women facing violence; developing special protocols to provide support to trans women, disabled women, and migrant women who are even more marginalized and have negligible access to support; and forming a panel of lawyers offering legal information to women over phone, among others. The Aman network has also recommended to build a temporary shelter in the Kashmir Valley, as there are no shelter homes built under the Protection of Women under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

The outcome of gender-based violence is long lasting for its victims, and rampant for the responses that are often inadequate. Hence, it is crucial to maintain a sense of urgency in cases of gender-based violence even during crisis situations. Based on the above literature review, it can be maintained that there is a need for a holistic response model to deal with the issue of gender-based violence during current and possible future pandemics. Health professionals, media, and community efforts must be combined to effectively deal with the issue of gender-based violence. Moreover, continuous and rigorous efforts are required to put an end to the stigma associated with gender-based violence.

The spread of the novel Coronavirus has created a myriad of problems for the people to grapple with. In the absence of a vaccine and effective treatment for this virus, the governments are forced to impose quarantines to reduce the spread of the disease. However, this has resulted in a paradox of social distancing, which includes issues such as economic instability, mental health problems, and isolation. Although there have been researches exploring the impact of COVID-19, there is a lack of rigorous literature highlighting these issues from the perspective of gender. This also involves the issue of rising gender violence during the pandemic. COVID-19 has not only led to an increase in the cases of gender-based violence but has disconnected them from their support networks. To reduce the prevalence of the issue, it is crucial to acknowledge the extent of gender-based violence, reimagine government policies, and support networks to make it easier for the victims to access them and, lastly, create awareness about the issue as well as the resources available to tackle it.

Author Contributions

SM and TS contributed to the conception, structure of the paper, contributed to analysis, and interpretation of available literature. SM contributed to the development initial draft. TS reviewed and critiqued the output for important intellectual content. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

1. Nie W. The origin of quaratine. Global Partners in Education Journal- Special Edition. (2015) 5:24–31. Available online at: http://www.gpejournal.org/index.php/GPEJ/article/view/108

2. Schepin OP. International Quarantine. Translated by Meerovich and Bobrov . New York, NY: International University Press Inc. (1991), p. 3–22.

3. Sabbatani S, and Fiorino S. The Antonine plague and the decline of the Roman empire. Infez Med. (2009) 17:261–75.

PubMed Abstract

4. Rosen W. Justinian's Flea: Plague, Empire, and the Birth of Europe. New York, NY: Viking Adult. (2007).

Google Scholar

5. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, and Rubin J. The psychology impact of quarantine and how to reduce it. Lancet. (2020) 395:912–0. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Hawryluck L, Gold WL, Robinson S, Pogorski S, Galea S, and Styra R. SARS control and psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg Infect Dis . (2004) 10:1206–12. doi: 10.3201/eid1007.030703

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Reynolds DL, Garay JR, Deamond SL, Moran MK, Gold W, and Styra R. Understanding compliance and psychological impact of the SARS quarantine experience. Epidemiol Infect. (2008) 136:997–1007. doi: 10.1017/S0950268807009156

8. Lee SM, Kang WS, Cho AR, Kim T, and Park JK. Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients. Compreh Psych. (2018) 87:123–7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.10.003

9. Peterman P, O'Donnell T, Shah O-P, and van Gelder. “Pandemics and Violence Against Women and Children.” CGD Working Paper 528 . Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. (2020). Available online at: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/pandemics-and-violence-against-women-and-children

10. Andersson N, Cockcroft A, and Shea B. Gender-based violence and HIV: relevance for HIV prevention in hyperendemic countries of southern Africa. AIDS. (2008) 4:S73–S86. doi: 10.1097/01.aids.0000341778.73038.86

11. Chandra J. NCW launches Domestic Violence Helpline. The Hindu . (2020, April 10). Retrieved from: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ncw-launches-domestic-violence-helpline/article31312219.ece

12. New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (NZFVC). (2020). Preventing and Responding to Family, Whānau and Sexual Violence during COVID-19. Available online at: https://nzfvc.org.nz/COVID-19/preventing-responding-violence-COVID-19

13. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (2020). World Disasters Report Focus of Local Actors, the Key to Humanitarian Effectiveness . Lyon, France: Imprimerie Chirat, 1–266, Available online at: http://ifrc-media.org/interactive/world-disasters-report-2015/#:~:text=The%202015%20World%20Disasters%20Report%20%E2%80%93%20launched%20today,face%20in%20scaling-up%20and%20sustaining%20their%20humanitarian%20response

14. Rose C. Plague and violence in early modern Italy. Renaissance Q. (2018) 71:1000–35. doi: 10.1086/699602

15. UNFPA. As Pandemic Rages, Women and Girls Face Intensified Risks. (2020, March 20). Retrieved from: https://www.unfpa.org/news/pandemic-rages-women-and-girlsface-intensified-risks

16. Ghanotakis E, Mayhew S, and Watts C. Tackling HIV. gender-based violence in South Africa: how has PEPFAR responded and what are the implications for implementing organizations? Health Policy Plann . (2009) 24:357–66. doi: 10.1093/heapol/czp024

17. Godbole S, and Mehendale S. HIV/AIDS epidemic in India: risk factors, risk behavior & strategies for prevention & control. Ind J Med Res. (2005) 121:356–68.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

18. Silverman JG, Decker MR, Sagurti N, Balaiah D, and Raj A. Intimate partner violence and HIV infection among married indian women. J Am Med Assoc. (2008) 300:703–10. doi: 10.1001/jama.300.6.703

19. Haneef C, and Kalyanpur A. Global Rapid Gender Analysis for COVID 19 . New York, NY: CARE and International Rescue Committee. (2020).

20. Menéndez C, Lucas A, Munguambe K, and Langer A. ‘Ebola crisis: the unequal impact on women and children's health. Lancet Global Health. (2015) 3:e130. doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)70009-4

21. Okur P. Sexual and reproductive health and rights of people on the move. MT Bull Netherl Soc Trop Med Int Health. (2016) 54:8–9. Available online at: https://www.rutgers.nl/sites/rutgersnl/files/PDF/nvtg_mt_2016-8-9.pdf

22. World Health Organizations Global Ethics Unit. WHO Ethical Guidance for Managing Epidemic Outbreaks. In: 11th Global Summit of National Ethics/ Bioethics Committees, Conference Report, Global Health, Global Ethics, Global Justice . Berlin. (2016). p. 118–151.

23. John N, Casey SE, Carino G, and McGovern T. Lessons Never Learned: Crisis and gender?based violence. Dev World Bioeth . (2020) 20:65–68. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12261

24. Palermo T, and Peterman A. Undercounting, overcounting, and the longevity of flawed estimates: statistics on sexual violence in conflict. Bull World Health Organiz. (2011) 89:924–26. doi: 10.2471/BLT.11.089888

25. Dobson N. From under the mud-pack: women and the charleville floods [online]. Macedon Digest. (1994) 9:11–3.

26. Enarson E, and Fordman M. From women's needs to women's rights in disasters. Glob Environ Change Part B Environ Hazards . (2001) 3:133–6. doi: 10.3763/ehaz.2001.0314

27. Fothergill A., and Peek L. Poverty and disasters in the united states: A review of recent sociological findings. Natural Hazards . (2004) 32:89–110 doi: 10.1023/B:NHAZ.0000026792.76181.d9

28. Campbell AM. An increasing risk of family violence during COVID-19 pandemic: Strengthening community collaborations to save lives. Foren Sci Int . (2020) 2:1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100089

29. Fisher S. Sri Lankan Women's orgnazitions responding to post tsunami violence. In: Enarson E, Chakrabarty P, editors. Women Gender and Disaster Global Issues and Initiatives . New Delhi: SAGE Publications India Pvt. (2009). doi: 10.4135/9788132108078.n18

30. Sikira A, and Urassa JK. Linking the twin pandemics: gender based violence and and HIV in Serengeti district, Mara, Tanzania. Int Asian Soc Sci. (2015) 5:324–34. doi: 10.18488/journal.1/2015.5.6/1.6.324.334

31. Davies SE, and Bennett BA. Gendered human rights analysis of Ebola and Zika: locating gender in global health emergencies. Int Affairs . (2016) 92:1041–60. doi: 10.1111/1468-2346.12704

32. Onyango MA, Resnick K, Davis A, and Shah RR. Gender-Based Violence Among Adolescent Girls and Young Women: A Neglected Consequence of the West African Ebola Outbreak. In: Schwartz D, Anoko J, Abramowitz S, editors. Pregnant in the Time of Ebola. Global Maternal and Child Health (Medical, Anthropological, and Public Health Perspectives) . Cham: Springer (2019). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-97637-2_8

33. Yasmin S. The Ebola Rape Epidemic No One's Talking About. Foreign Policy News. (2016). Retrieved from: https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/02/02/the-ebola-rape-epidemic-west-africa-teenage-pregnancy/ (accessed March 28, 2020).

34. Arthur C, and Clark R. Determinants of domestic violence: a cross-national study. Int J Soc Family. (2009) 35:147–67. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23070721

35. Alon TM, Olmstead-Rumsey J, Doepke M, and Tertilt M. The Impact of COVID 19 on Gender Equality . Cambridge: Working Paper National Bureau of Economic Research. (2020) 26947. doi: 10.3386/w26947

36. Mak IWC, Chu CM, Pan PC, You MGC, and Chan VL. Long-term psychiatric morbidities among SARS survivors. Gen Hosp Psychiatry. (2009) 31:318–26. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2009.03.001

37. Reissman DB, Watson PJ, Klomp RW, Tanielian TL, and Prior SD. Pandemic influenza preparedness: adaptive responses to an evolving challenge. J Homel Secur Emerg Manag. (2006) 3:1–26. doi: 10.2202/1547-7355.1233

38. Zhang J, Lu H, Zeng H, Zhang S, Du Q, Jiang T, et al. The differential psychological distress of the populations affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brain Behav Immunity. (2020) 87:49–50. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.031

39. Capaldi DM, Knoble NB, Wu Shortt J, and Kim HK. A systematic review of risk factors for intimate partner violence. Partner Abuse. (2012) 3:231–80. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.3.2.231

40. Devries KM, Mak JY, Bacchus J, Child JC, Falder G, Petzold M, et al. Intimate partner violence and incident depressive symptoms and suicide attempts: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. PLoS Med. (2013) 10:e1001439. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001439

41. Leonard KE. Editorial: Alcohol and intimate partner violence: When can we say that heavy drinking is a contributing cause of violence? Addiction. (2005) 100:422–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2005.00994.x

42. Field CA, Caetano R, and Nelson S. Alcohol and violence related cognitive risk factors associated with the perpetration of intimate partner violence. J Family Viol. (2004) 19:249–53. doi: 10.1023/B:JOFV.0000032635.42145.66

43. Polakovic G. Pandemic drives alcohol sales — and raises concerns about substance abuse. Business Health USC News . (2020). Available online at: https://news.usc.edu/168549/COVID-19-alcohol-sales-abuse-stress-relapse-usc-experts/ (accessed July 8, 2020).

44. Henson S. Drug and Alcohol Use Increase during COVID 19. The Recovery Village (2020). Available online at: https://www.therecoveryvillage.com/drug-addiction/news/drug-alcohol-use-rising-during-COVID/

45. Mobarak MA, and Ramos A. The Effects of Migration on Intimate Partner Violence: Evidence for the Exposure Reduction Theory in Bangladesh. (2019). Working paper Available online at: https://sistemas.colmex.mx/Reportes/LACEALAMES/LACEA-LAMES2019_paper_321.pdf (accessed March 19, 2020).

46. Brenner MH. Trends in alcohol consumption and associated illnesses some effects of economic changes. Am J Public Health . (1975) 65:1279–92. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.65.12.1279

47. Brenner MH. Economic instability, unemployment rates, behavioral risks, and mortality rates in Scotland, 1952–1983. Int J Health Serv . (1987) 17:475–87. doi: 10.2190/5GVU-86Y6-NH1U-PQB0

48. Mulia N, Zemore SE, Murphy R, Liu H, and Catalano R. Economic loss alcohol consumption problems during the 2008 to 2009 U.S. recession. Alcoh Clin Exp Res . (2013) 38:1026–34. doi: 10.1111/acer.12301

49. Renzetti CM. Economic Stress and Domestic Violence. Harrisburg, PA: VAWnet, a project of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence/Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (2009). Available online at: http://www.vawnet.org

50. Bhalotra S, Kambhampati U, Rawlings S, and Siddique Z. Intimate partner violence: the influence of job opportunities for men and women. World Bank Econ Rev. (2019) lhz030. doi: 10.1093/wber/lhz030

51. Schneider D, Harknett K, and McLanahan S. Intimate partner violence in the great recession. Demography . (2016) 53:471–505. doi: 10.1007/s13524-016-0462-1

52. Bradbury-Jones C, and Isham L. The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence. J Clin Nurs . (2020) 29:2047–49. doi: 10.1111/jocn.15296

53. UNICEF GBViE Helpdesk. Emergency Responses to Public Health Outbreaks. (2018). Retrieved from: https://gbvaor.net/thematic-areas

54. Richards L. DASH: Domestic Abuse, Stalking and Harassment and Honour-Based Violence Risk Identification and Assessment and Management Model. DASH Risk Checklist (2009, April 12). Retrieved from: www.dashriskchecklist.co.uk

55. US Department of Justice. Violence Against Women: Identifying Risk Factors . Washington, DC: US Dept of Justice (2004).

56. Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancent. (2002) 359:1331–6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08336-8

57. Woods SJ. Prevalence and patterns of posttraumatic stress disorder in abused and post abused women. Issues Mental Health Nurs. (2009) 21:309–24. doi: 10.1080/016128400248112

58. Jackson H, Philp E, Nuttall RL, and Diller L. Traumatic brain injury: a hidden consequence for battered women. Prof Psychol. (2002) 33:39–45. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.33.1.39

59. Walker LE. Battered Women Syndrome . New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company (2015), p. 49–74. doi: 10.1002/9781118625392.wbecp396

60. Kagi J. Crime Rate in WA Plunges Amid Coronavirus Social Distancing Lockdown Measures. ABC News Australia. (2020). Available online at: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04-08/coronavirus-shutdown-sees-crime-ratedrop-in-wa/12132410 (accessed 10 April, 2020).

61. Gearin M, and Knight B. Family Violence Perpetrators Using COVID-19 as a Form of Abuse We Have Not Experienced Before . ABC News Australia. (2020, April 7). Retrieved from: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-29/coronavirus-family-violence-surge-in-victoria/12098546

62. Allen-Ebrahimian B. China's Domestic Violence Epidemic, Axios. (2020). Retrieved from: https://www.axios.com/china-domestic-violencecoronavirusquarantine-7b00c3ba-35bc-4d16-afdd-b76ecfb28882.html (accessed April 7, 2020).

63. Wagers S. Domestic Violence Growing in Wake of Coronavirus Outbreak . The Conversation (2020). Available online at: https://theconversation.com/domestic-violence-growing-in-wake-of-coronavirus-outbreak-135598 (accessed April 10, 2020).

64. Ingala S, and Smith K. Counting Dead Women . (2020). Available online at: https://kareningalasmith.com/

65. Kelly J, and Morgan T. Coronavirus: Domestic Abuse Calls Up 25% Since Lockdown, Charity Says (2020). BBC NEWS. Available online at: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-52157620

66. Shah K. How COVID-19 is Amplifying Gender Inequality in India . The Indian Express (2020, May 17). Retrieved from: indianexpress.com/article/opinion/coronavirus-gender-inequality-india-6414659/

67. Chandra J. COVID 19 Lockdown Rise in Domestic Violence, Police Apathy: NCW. The Hindu (2020, April 2). Retrieved from: www.thehindu.com/news/national/COVID-19-lockdown-spike-in-domestic-violence-says~ncw/article31238659.ece

68. van Gelder N, Peterman A, Potts A, O'Donnell M, Thompson K, Shah N, et al. COVID-19: Reducing the risk of infection might increase the risk of intimate partner violence. EClinicalMedicine. (2020) 21:1–2. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100348

69. Samuels M. Understanding the Impact of COVID 19 on Domestic Violence. Boston University Today (2020, April 16). Retrieved from https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/COVID19-impact-on-domestic-violence/

70. Fielding S. In Quarantine With an Abuser: Surge in Domestic Violence Reports Linked to Coronavirus . The Guardian. (2020, April 8). Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/03/coronavirus-quara~ntine-abuse-domestic-violence

71. Hatchimonji JS, Swendiman RA, Seamon MJ, and Nance ML. Trauma does not quarantine: violence during the COVID 19 pandemic. Ann Surg. (2020) 272:e53–e54. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003996

72. Gerster J. When Home Isn't Safe: How Coronavirus Puts Neighbours on Front Lines of Abuse . Global News (2020, April 7). Retrieved from: https://globalnews.ca/news/6723582/coronavirus-domestic-abuse/

73. WHO. Health Care for Women Subjected to Intimate Partner Violence or Sexual Violence: A Clinical Handbook. WHO (2014). Available online at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/vaw-clinical-handbook/en/

74. WHO. Strengthening Health Systems to Respond to Women Subjected to Intimate Partner Violence or Sexual Violence: A Manual for Health Managers. (2017). Available online at: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/violence/vaw-health-systems-manual/en/

75. France 24. UN Chief Decries'horrifying' Rise in Domestic Violence Amid Virus Lockdown. France 24 . (2020 April 6). Retrieved from: https://www.france24.com/en/20200406-un-chief-decries-horrifying-rise-in-domestic-violence-amid-virus-lockdown

76. Mazza M, Marano G, Lai C, Janin L, and Sani G. Danger in danger: interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine. Psychiatry Res. (2020) 289:1–3. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113046

77. Guenfound I. French Women Use Code Words at Pharmacies to Escape Domestic Violence During Coronavirus Lockdown . ABC News (2020, April 8). Retrieved from: https://abcnews.go.com/International/frenchwomen-code-words-pharmacies-escape-domestic-violence/story?id=69954238

78. Domestic Violence Resources Centre Australia (DVRCA). Coronavirus (COVID-19) and Family Violence. (2020). DVRCA. Available online at: http://www.dvrcv.org.au/help-advice/coronavirus-COVID-19-and-family-violence/family-friends-and-neighbours (accessed April 10, 2020).

79. UN Women. Checklist for COVID-19 Response by UN Women Deputy Executive Director Åsa Regnér. (2020). Available online at: https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/3/news-checklist-for-COVID-19-response-by-ded-regner (accessed March 20, 2020).

80. Godin M. (2020). March 18. As Cities Around the World Go on Lockdown, Victims of Domestic Violence Look for a Way Out. Time Magazine . Retrieved from https://time.com/5803887/coronavirus-domestic-violence-victims/

81. Fraser. Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Violence against Women and Girls . (2020). Available online at: https://gbvguidelines.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/vawg-helpdesk-284-COVID-19-and-vawg.pdf (accessed March 20, 2020).

82. Nair VS, and Banerjee D. “The cries behind the closed room”: domestic violence against women during Covid 19, A crisis call. J Ment Health Educ. 1–11. (2020).

Keywords: quarantine, gender-based violence, pandemic, domestic violence, COVID 19

Citation: Mittal S and Singh T (2020) Gender-Based Violence During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Mini-Review. Front. Glob. Womens Health 1:4. doi: 10.3389/fgwh.2020.00004

Received: 06 June 2020; Accepted: 27 July 2020; Published: 08 September 2020.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2020 Mittal and Singh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Tushar Singh, tusharsinghalld@gmail.com

This article is part of the Research Topic

COVID-19 and Women's Health

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 09 May 2024

Domestic violence against women during the COVID19 pandemic in Jordan: a systematic review

• Maissa N. Alrawashdeh 1 ,
• Rula Odeh Alsawalqa   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-5605-5444 2 ,
• Rami Aljbour 3 ,
• Ann Alnajdawi 4 &
• Fawzi Khalid AlTwahya 5  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  11 , Article number:  598 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

360 Accesses

Metrics details

This study aimed to explore the forms and causes of domestic violence against women in Jordan during the COVID-19 pandemic through a systematic literature review. The review yielded eight articles published between April 2020 and November 2022 in the final sample, all of which met the inclusion criteria. The results revealed 11 forms of domestic violence against women in Jordan during and after the full and partial lockdowns due to the pandemic. Physical violence was the most prevalent form of domestic violence, followed by economic, psychological, emotional, verbal, and sexual forms, as well as control and humiliation, bullying, online abuse, harassment and neglect-related violence. The causes were a combination of economic, socio-cultural, and psychological factors emerging because of the pandemic and lockdowns (e.g., poverty, job loss, low wages, gender discrimination, double burden on women [monotonous roles, paid work], male dominance, reduced income, high cost of living). Additionally, effects of the pandemic included psychological, mental, and emotional negative consequences (e.g., anxiety, fear, stress, depression, loneliness, failure, status frustration). Individuals in Jordanian societies employed the norms, ideas, and values of the patriarchal culture to negatively adapt to the economic and psychological effects of the pandemic, which contributed to more domestic violence cases.

Similar content being viewed by others

Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions

Investigating child sexual abuse material availability, searches, and users on the anonymous Tor network for a public health intervention strategy

Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation

Introduction.

Domestic violence (DV) is a significant global and social problem. United Nations ( 2022 ) defined DV as a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner, including physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, and financial acts or threats of action that influence another person. DV is also called “domestic abuse,” “family violence” or “intimate partner violence (IPV)” (Xue et al. 2020 ; Alsawalqa 2021a ). “DV is reaching across national boundaries as well as socio-economic, cultural, racial and class distinctions… its incidence is also extensive, making it a typical and accepted behavior… Its continued existence is morally indefensible…” (Kaur & Garg, 2008 : p. 73). DV is the most common form of violence against women (Xue et al. 2020 ). According to UN Women ( 2021 : p. 4), the experiences of violence against women can be classified into several categories: physical abuse (i.e., been slapped, hit, kicked, had things thrown at them, or other physical harm); verbal abuse (i.e., being yelled at, called names, humiliated); denied basic needs (i.e., health care, money, food, water, shelter); denied communication (i.e., with other people, including being forced to stay alone for long periods of time); and sexual harassment (i.e., being subjected to inappropriate jokes, suggestive comments, leering or unwelcome touch/kisses). UN Women used this definition for the purpose of the measuring the impact of COVID-19 on violence against women.

DV as a “shadow pandemic” grew and intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly against women and girls (Women UN 2021 ). UN women ( 2021 ) confirmed there was an increase in calls to DV helplines in many countries since the outbreak of COVID-19. Xue et al. ( 2020 ) indicated that during the COVID-19 lockdown, homes became an unsafe environment for victims of DV; women and children were disproportionately affected and made vulnerable during the crisis, which prevented them from seeking help, thus increasing their vulnerability and suffering. The lockdown measures due to the pandemic imposed social distancing, leading to increased family isolation and limited access to legal and social services (Xue et al. 2020 ; Leslie and Wilson 2020 ). These socio-economic stressors led to negative emotional, behavioral, and psychological consequences including depression, anxiety, panic, obsessive-compulsive behaviors, and paranoia (Pedrosa et al. 2020 ), and thus facilitated DV, child abuse, and elder abuse (Al-Tammemi 2020 ; Xue et al. 2020 ).

Since the first registered case of COVID-19 on March 2, 2020, the Jordanian government took several protective measures to prevent the rapid spread of the virus by implementing the National Defense Law on March 14. Under this law, the roads, schools, universities, air and land border crossings, all private businesses, and non-essential public services were closed. Additionally, this law suspended air traffic, and public gatherings as well as religious practices were banned. These rigorous measures had negative multidimensional effects on the economic and social conditions of Jordanian citizens, including human rights violations, such as labor rights, freedom of expression (Alsawalqa et al. 2022a ), loss of human resources, decreased income levels because of declining economic growth, drop in productivity, dismissal of employees from their work, and the inability of some organizations to pay employees’ salaries (Abufaraj et al. 2021 ; Al-Tammemi 2020 ). These poor conditions contributed to an increase in DV cases, in particular against women and children. Jordanian Juvenile and Family Protection Department ( 2020 ) stated that the number of reports of DV increased from 41,221 in 2018, to 54,743 in 2020; of these cases, 58.7% were physical violence, and 34% sexual violence, and most of the victims were female (Higher Population Council, 2021 ; National Council for Family Affairs 2022 ; 2013 ). According to the United Nations Population Fund, approximately 69% of Jordanian women were victims of some type of gender-based DV during the COVID-19 pandemic (Anderson 2020 ).

Jordanian women suffering multiple socio-economic constraints was directly related to the economic, social, and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, which imposed new obligations on women, consumed more of their time and effort, and increased their stress and responsibility owing to the long period for which they had to stay at home. Homes became increasingly crowded with all members of the family present, thus increasing the household chores and caregiving burden faced by women and also the burden in meeting family needs in terms of food and supervising their children’s online education and recreation activities. Moreover, women also had to ensure that health and safety precautions to protect their family were performed diligently. Additionally, they experienced increasing financial obligations, declining income, and accumulated debt owing to the pandemic (AbuTayeh 2021 ). Similarly, Sisterhood is Global Institute-Jordan (SIGI) ( 2021a , 2021b ) mentioned that the most important effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on women included the burden of unpaid family care; the high risk of women and children being exposed to DV, and the decline in protection, prevention and response services provided to them; the exacerbation of a lack of women’s economic participation, the increase in the requirement of women in the healthcare sector, and the weak representation of women in leadership positions and response teams.

The Jordanian government implemented several measures to address cases of DV and violence against women and girls. These included the establishment of the Family Protection Department in 1997, which was merged with the Juvenile Department in 2021 to become the Juveniles and Family Protection Department (Public Security Directorate 2022 ). For the first time in Jordan, the principle of promoting gender equality was adopted as an organizing factor in the economic and social development plan (1999–2003), by integrating a gender perspective (The Jordanian National Commission for Women 1998 ). In addition, the National Council for Family Affairs was established in 2001 as a civil society organization to contribute to formulating and analyzing legislation for senior citizens, family counseling, and for early childhood and family protection against violence; it included the national team for family protection against violence to address the gaps in the protection system for family members and stop incidents of DV. The government also approved the Protection from Domestic Violence Law No. 15 in 2017, in comparison with the Protection from Domestic Violence Law No. 6 of 2008 that can be regarded as a protective law without mention of gender-based violence, Law No. 15 states the importance of adapting legal texts to address the needs of Jordanian families, and to expand the umbrella of family preservation by introducing alternative measures to punishment that could reform the family and enable it to overcome the obstacles it might face (EuroMed Rights, 2018 ; National Council for Family Affairs 2022 ; 2013 ). According to the Secretary-General of the National Council for Family Affairs, this new law gave a broader concept of the place where family members usually reside and expanded the concept of family by adding relatives up to the fourth degree and in-laws from the third and fourth degrees to the list of those covered by the protection law (Protection from domestic violence law, 2017; Al-Nimri 2019 ). Within the women’s protection system in Jordan, there are five main care homes affiliated with the Ministry of Social Development regarding family harmony for women whose lives are at risk: Dar Al-Wefaq Amman, Dar Al-Wefaq Irbid, Dar Al-Karama, Rusaifa Girls’ Care Home, and Amna. These care homes welcome women whose lives are threatened by honor killings; they wish to end “preventive detention,” in which women whose lives are at risk are referred to prisons in order to preserve their lives (Ministry of Social Development 2022 ). Regarding government priorities in combating violence against women in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, in March 2020, the Council of Ministers approved the national strategy for women’s empowerment (2020–2025) for a society free from discrimination and gender-based violence, where women and girls can enjoy full human rights and equal opportunities to achieve comprehensive and sustainable development (The Jordanian National Commission For Women 2020 ).

In spite of the official Jordanian statements about the increase in the number of DV cases against women and girls during the COVID-19 lockdown, the growing momentum of Jordanian media reports on issues of DV against women, and the publication of individual stories of women and girls who have been subjected to physical and psychological violence, murders, or underage marriage of girls (Darwish 2020 ; Ziyadat 2021 ; Zoud 2021 ), the data on DV during the COVID-19 pandemic still remains scarce in Jordan. The reliance on the press and media reports to understand the reasons for this has increased. Therefore, this review aimed to explore the link between the economic, social, and health-related effects of the pandemic and the high number of DV cases against women in Jordan. For this purpose, we explored the forms and causes of DV against women in Jordan, during and after the full and partial lockdowns imposed due to the pandemic, as discussed in the relevant literature.

Sample selection process and search criteria

All studies that revealed the forms and causes of DV against women in Jordan during the COVID-19 pandemic, that were published between April 2020 and November 2022, were searched using the University of Jordan Library, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SCOPUS database. We used the following six sets of terms: “gender-based violence” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19,” “partner violence” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19,” “domestic violence” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19,” “domestic abuse” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19,” “women abuse” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19,” and “wife abuse” + “Jordan” + “COVID-19.” The search comprised studies published in Arabic and English in academic journals, which used quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods research designs. Primary search results yielded 231 studies. Of these studies, 66 studies were excluded as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. The systematic review was developed according to the PRISMA (see the flowchart [Fig. 1 ]).

PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. A PRISMA flow diagram visually summarises the screening process. It records the total number of articles found from the initial searches, and then makes the selection process transparent by reporting on inclusion or exclusion decisions made at various stages of the systematic review (Celegence, 2022 ; Macquarie University Library, 2023 ).

Data inclusion and exclusion criteria

The primary inclusion criteria for the papers include (a) the presence of DV against women construct, (b) Jordanian society, (c) use of Arabic and English language, (d) published scientific research, and (e) the time range during and after the COVID-19 pandemic between April 2020 and November 2022. This period was identified because it witnessed an increased momentum in scientific research regarding the consequences of the pandemic globally. Papers on DV, especially those about DV in Jordan, experienced stagnation toward the end of 2022. It was observed by the researchers that scientific journals, especially local Jordanian journals, no longer include the repercussions of the pandemic on DV among their priorities and interests in publishing. This was also confirmed through communication with other researchers and publishers.

We also included both qualitative and quantitative articles focusing on constructs connected to DV against women, such as women abuse, wife abuse, partner violence, gender-based violence, domestic abuse, family abuse, and family violence. Studies that examine DV against women in Jordan before the COVID-19 pandemic, and DV against the elderly before the COVID-19 pandemic, or children before or during and after the COVID-19 pandemic were excluded. Additionally, unpublished studies, national and international reports, duplicate articles, master’s and Ph.D. theses, conference abstracts, and studies that included refugee DV against women (e.g. families or Syrian women) in Jordan were also excluded.

After assessing the quality of the primary studies and refining the included studies in the final sample, all eight remaining studies that met the inclusion criteria were exported to EndNote. The data were extracted and sorted through a structured table that contained seven variables: (a) author and publication year, (b) aim, (c) study design, (d) sample details, (e) occurred sample location, (f) definition of DV, (g) forms of DV, (h) causes of DV, (i) abuser, and (j) study limitations (see Table 1 ).

Quality assessment

The search in the literature via a comprehensive search of bibliographic databases, manual searches, and exploration of grey literature searches contribute to reducing bias. Moreover, the inclusion of studies has been thoroughly reviewed and their eligibility was independently assessed by two sociology professors, A.A and K.B with expertise in the fields of violence and abuse within the Jordanian context. They screened all study titles and abstracts to ensure that the study objectives were adhered to, in collaboration with both researchers M.A and R.A. They then examined the texts of the studies following the systematic review protocol as a guide (PRISMA 2020 ); R.A and A.A and reviewed the data, and the whole team discussed and agreed on the results of the data. Quantitative studies were assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies, which includes eight categories: selection bias, study design, confounders, blinding, data collection method, withdrawals and dropouts, intervention integrity, and analysis appropriate to questions. Each examined practice receives a mark ranging between “strong,” “moderate,” and “weak” (Thomas 2003 ). For qualitative studies, the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP Qualitative Studies Checklist) was used, which includes ten questions, answerable with three options (“yes”, “no” or “can’t tell”), to evaluate the study aims, validity of methodology, data analysis and results, research design validity and novelty. The CASP is divided into three sections — Section A: Are the results of the study valid? Section B: What are the results? Section C: Will the results help locally? (CASP website 2022 ).

Sample description

The eight articles included in the final sample were published between April 2020 and November 2022 in eight separate English-language journals on interpersonal violence, clinical practice, humanities and social sciences, and psychology. Of these super specialty journals and their scope in issues related to violence, only one journal specialized in violence—the Journal of Interpersonal Violence . Most of these studies had a quantitative descriptive design via online survey, and included cross-sectional (four articles), descriptive statistical (two articles), and descriptive comparative (one article) studies. The remaining study adopted qualitative exploratory descriptive analysis through a semi-structured interview guide (one article). Most of the participants in these studies were married women, between 18 and 55 years of age, who had experienced violence from their husbands; a few of them had experienced it from their father, brother, mother, or work colleagues. Only one study addressed DV among pregnant women (Abujilban et al. 2022 ). Two articles included samples of men: one of them included only married men and explored the causes and forms of DV against their wives from the perspective of the husbands. Most of these studies considered the rural and urban classification in selecting the population samples from the north, central, and southern regions of Jordan (five articles), while three articles selected samples from Amman, the capital of Jordan. No article defined or presented a clear concept of DV, except three articles, one of which was based on the World Health Organization’s definition (Abujilban et al. 2022 ). The other articles defined DV as any abusive or violent behavior that occurred between spouses. Two articles used the term “intimate partner” to refer to the husband, and some used IPV, “spousal violence,” “women abuse,” and “male violence against women” synonymously with DV (Table 1 ).

Limitations of the study

The present study is one of the first studies to address DV against women during and after the COVID-19 pandemic in Jordan, that is, within an Arab Muslim social- cultural context. The strengths of this review are the focus on the concept of DV used in studies as well as the identity of the abuser. in Jordan (rural, urban/ North, Central, South), with differently ages (18-60 years) and their educational, professional, and marital status, as well as their health status (e.g. pregnant women).

This study enriches the field of family sociology studies and women’s studies in Jordan, considering that the data on DV Against Women during the COVID-19 pandemic are still scarce in Jordan and the reliance on the press and media reports to understand the reasons for this has increased. Nevertheless, the present study also had some limitations. First, it excludes women of other nationalities, such as those who hold Syrian and Iraqi nationality and lived for a period in Jordan and were involved in its cultural context and experienced the same economic conditions, especially during and after the pandemic. Without this exclusion, the study sample could have enhanced the results and presented clearer details on women’s DV experiences in Jordan in general. Second, this review was limited to publications in English and Arabic, and in international and local academic journals only, which means that studies that may have been published in other languages were not considered, and scientific studies conducted by organizations and educational institutions that could have added to causes or forms of violence were not considered. Finally, this study does not consider studies on DV consequences and intervention strategies, which may hinder a complete understanding of this complex phenomenon.

The findings of our review were divided according to the main research goals: exploring forms and causes of DV against Jordanian women during and after the full and partial lockdowns imposed due to the pandemic.

Forms of DV against women during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

The results of our systematic review revealed 11 forms of DV experienced by women and girls in Jordan during and after the full and partial lockdowns due to the pandemic: physical (Abujilban et al. 2022 ; Abuhammad, 2021 ; Alsawalqa, 2021a ; Alsawalqa, 2021b ; Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ; Kataybeh 2021 ; Qudsieh et al. 2022 ), economic (Alsawalqa 2021a ; Alsawalqa, 2021b ; Qudsieh et al. 2022 ), psychological (Abujilban et al. 2022 ; Abuhammad, 2021 ; Alsawalqa 2021a ; Alsawalqa 2021b ; Kataybeh 2021 ), emotional (Alsawalqa, 2021a ; Alsawalqa 2021b ) verbal (Kataybeh 2021 ; Qudsieh et al. 2022 ; Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ), sexual (Abujilban et al. 2022 ; Kataybeh 2021 ), control and humiliation (Abujilban et al. 2022 ), bullying (Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ), online abuse (Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ), harassment (Alsawalqa 2021b ), and neglect (Alsawalqa 2021a ). Physical violence was the most prevalent among the samples of these studies. Notably, some of these articles dealt with psychological and emotional abuse as belonging to the same category, or as a separate concept [e.g., Qudsieh et al. 2022 ; Kataybeh 2021 ]. By contrast, some researchers defined the concepts of verbal, psychological, and emotional abuse, and dealt with them separately [e.g., Alsawalqa 2021b ; Kataybeh 2021 ]. One article addressed DV in general without clarifying its types and measurement; its results simply indicated that “20.5% of the participants suffered from increased domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic” (Aolymat, 2020 : 520).

Causes of DV against women during and after the COVID-19 pandemic

We found that the causes of DV Against Women during the pandemic were the result of a combination of the economic, socio-cultural, and psychological effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and curfew. Six articles confirmed that the economic factors included poverty; job loss; low, insufficient, or reduced income; and high cost of living and healthcare facilities, which led to the spread and rise of DV (Abuhammad, 2021 ; Qudsieh et al. 2022 ; Alsawalqa, 2021a ; Alsawalqa 2021b ; Aolymat 2020 ; Kataybeh 2021 ). Moreover, the lockdown increased the time spent with partners and family members and caused negative psychological responses, such as stress and tension (Abuhammad, 2021 ). Five articles emphasized that the main socio-cultural factor that encouraged violence against women was the hegemonic masculinity and patriarchy that normalized violence, making women accept, tolerate, and even justify it (Abuhammad, 2021 ; Alsawalqa 2021a ; Alsawalqa 2021b ; Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ; Kataybeh 2021 ). Furthermore, the studies showed that the wives’ families often interfered in their marital life (Alsawalqa 2021a ; Kataybeh 2021 ; Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ). The results of the study Alsawalqa ( 2021a ) also confirmed that the wives’ long preoccupation with social media, and neglect of the house, children, and their personal hygiene, in addition to the husband’s unfulfilled sexual needs, were among the main reasons why they were violent to their wives, before and during the pandemic. All studies indicated that these economic, social, and cultural factors and their negative effects on the psychological, emotional, and social well-being of individuals had long-term effects which continued after the end of the lockdown.

Despite the abundance of publications on DV in Jordan, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, there was no clear or explicit definition of the concept of DV or an accurate distinction of its forms (Alsawalqa et al. 2022b ). Our study attempted to shed light on published scientific research that addressed DV in Jordan during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, to gain knowledge and enhance our understanding of the link between the pandemic’s ramifications and high rates of DV in Jordan.

Globally, before the COVID-19 pandemic began, one in every three women experienced physical or sexual violence mostly by an intimate partner; 245 million women and girls aged 15 years or over have been subjected to sexual or physical violence. The violence against women and girls has intensified since the outbreak of COVID-19 (Women UN 2021 ).

According to World Health Organization ( 2020 : p1) the Eastern Mediterranean Region has the second highest prevalence of violence against women (37%) worldwide. This is due to structural systems that maintain gender inequalities at different levels of society, compounded by political crises and socioeconomic instability in the region. Based on a Women UN ( 2021 ) study, in collaboration with Ipsos, and with support from national statistical offices, national women’s machineries and a technical advisory group of experts, the pooled data from 13 countries covering more than 16,000 women respondents, found that 1 in 4 women say that household conflicts have become more frequent, and they feel more unsafe in their home, and (58%) women have experienced or know a woman who has experienced violence since COVID-19. The most common form is verbal abuse (50%), followed by sexual harassment (40%), physical abuse (36%), denial of basic needs (35%) and denial of means of communication (30%). Additionally, (56%) women felt less safe at home since the COVID-19 pandemic. (44%) women living in rural areas, were more likely to report feeling more unsafe while walking alone at night since the pandemic, compared to women living in urban areas (39%). (62%) were also more likely to think that sexual harassment in public spaces has worsened, compared to (55%) of women living in urban areas. Moreover, younger women aged 18–49 years were the more vulnerable group, with nearly 1 in 2 of them affected, and more than 3 in 10 women (34%) aged 60+ and more than 4 in 10 women aged 50–59 years (42%) reported having experienced violence or knowing someone who has since the pandemic began. Women living with children were more likely to report having experienced violence or to know someone who has experienced it since the pandemic, whether they were partnered (47%) or not (48%). Conversely, nearly 4 in 10 women living without children, partnered (37%) or not (41%), reported such experiences. Women who were not employed during the pandemic were also particularly affected, with an estimated (52%) reporting such experiences, compared to (43%) of employed women. Additionally, exposure was highest among women in Kenya (80%), Morocco (69%), Jordan (49%) and Nigeria (48%). Those in Paraguay were the least likely to report such experiences, at (25%) (p. 5-6, 8).

In Jordan, the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and the strict lockdown measures to prevent its spread had negative economic, social, and psychological effects on the citizens. Regarding economic repercussions, according to Raouf et al. ( 2020 ), the Jordanian gross domestic product decreased by (23%) during the lockdown. The service sector was the hardest hit, seeing an estimated drop in output of approximately (30%), and food systems experienced a reduction in output of approximately (40%). Moreover, employment losses during the lockdown were estimated at over (20%), mainly driven by job losses in the service and agriculture sectors. Household incomes decreased on average by approximately one-fifth owing to the lockdown, mainly driven by contraction in the service sector, slowdown in manufacturing, and lower remittances from abroad. As a result of this lockdown and company exploitation of the National Defense Law’s decisions imposed in emergency situations to ensure protect public safety, many workers were dismissed, several others did not receive their salaries, and some workers’ incomes decreased by (30–50%). Additionally, some companies and organizations deducted the period of lockdown imposed by the government from workers’ salaries (Jordan Labor Watch 2020 ; Jordan Economic Forum 2020 ).

The unemployment rate during the fourth quarter of 2019 reached (19%), an increase of (0.3%) from the fourth quarter of 2018. Unemployment rates reached (24.7%) in 2020 and (25%) during the first quarter of 2021, reflecting an increase of (5.7%) from the first quarter of 2020. The rate in the fourth quarter of 2021 reached (23.3%), an increase of (0.1%) from the third quarter of the same year, and a decrease of (1.4%) from the fourth quarter of 2020 (Department of Statistics 2021 ; 2020 ). Additionally, self-isolation measures and lockdown policies led to a lack of access to adequate healthcare services (Alijla 2021 ), particularly restricting women’s access to healthcare (Jordanian Economic and Social Council 2020a , 2020b ). There were also increases in food prices and people getting into debt (UNDP 2020 ).

According to the latest survey on household income and expenditures conducted by the Department of Statistics (2017-2018) (Department of Statistics, Jordan [DOS], 2018 ), poverty in Jordan was relatively high. It reached (15.7%), representing 1.069 million Jordanians, while the rate of (extreme) hunger poverty in Jordan reached (0.12%), which is equivalent to 7993 Jordanian individuals. Poverty in Jordan increased significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic; the estimates of the World Bank showed that the potential increase in the short-term poverty rates in Jordan may increase by an additional (11%) over the official rate declared before the COVID-19 pandemic (15.7%), to approximately (27%) (Baybars 2021 ). A UNICEF study ( 2020 ), which covered both Jordanian and Syrian families, also found that the number of households with a monthly income of less than 100 JD (140 USD) had doubled since before the COVID-19 pandemic, and only (28%) of households had adequate finances to sustain themselves for a two-week period. Four out of ten families were unable to purchase the hygiene products they need; children went to bed hungry in (28%) of the homes during lockdown, decreasing to (15%) post-lockdown. As a result of the pandemic, employment was disrupted in (68%) of households. Furthermore, (17%) of the children under five years did not receive basic vaccinations, (23%) of children who were sick during the pandemic did not receive medical attention (largely owing to fear of the virus and lack of funds), eight out of 10 households adopted negative coping strategies, and (89%) of young women performed household duties (including caring) compared to (49%) of young men.

Notably, The Jordan Economic Monitor report issued by the World Bank showed that economic growth in Jordan in 2021 was strong at (2.2%), owing to the significant expansions in the service, industry, and travel and tourism sectors. However, some sectors, such as the service sector that deals directly with the public (through restaurants, hotels, and so on) were still experiencing low levels of economic growth before the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (Refaqat et al. 2022 ). The termination of worker services in affected organizations and businesses had a significant impact on the economic circumstances of many families, particularly women-led households, causing health and psychological harm due to the inability to ensure general well-being and access to effective healthcare. Additionally, women working in low-wage, informal, temporary, or short-term sectors, such as seasonal jobs or small-scale businesses, were disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Furthermore, (35.4%) of Jordanian women who worked in the education sector had to switch to remote teaching because of the pandemic, which added to their domestic work. By contrast, (13.4%) of women in Jordan who worked in the health and social services sectors continued to provide their services along with the burdens of social responsibilities imposed on them (Jordanian Economic and Social Council 2020a , 2020b ).

Regarding social and psychological repercussions, the negative economic conditions, in addition to the lockdowns, social distancing behaviors, and the lack of in-person social interaction, created enormous pressures that led to high levels of anxiety, stress, and depression among the Jordanian people, particularly among those aged 18–39 years. The stress was greater in men than in women, and anxiety and depression levels were higher in women than in men (Abuhammad et al. 2022 ). People with poor social support, who were younger and female, were more likely to experience lockdown-related anxiety (Massad et al. 2022 ). Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic had a notable effect on the mental health of the Jordanians who had low monthly income (<500 JD) or were unemployed, as well as diabetes patients (Suleiman et al. 2022 ), who felt neglected or lonely. Married couples with higher income were less likely to feel lonely than others (Jordanian Economic and Social Council, 2020a , 2020b ). Gresham et al. ( 2021 ) found that COVID-19-related stressors (financial anxiety, social disconnection, health anxiety, COVID-19-specific stress, and so on) were associated with greater IPV during the pandemic. Additionally, IPV was associated with movement outside of the home (leaving the residence); greater movement outside the home may act as a way for victims to physically distance themselves from their partners, thereby reducing stress and avoiding further abuse.

These negative socio-economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic led to exacerbating DV among Jordanian families. During the mandatory curfew, (35%) of Jordanians were subjected to at least one form of domestic abuse (10% total increase), (58%) of which were victims of abuse by a male family member (25% father, 16.5% husband, and 16.5% brother), (33%) by a female family member (25% mother, 8% sister), and (9%) by others. The most prevalent forms of DV reported during the lockdown were verbal violence (48%), psychological violence (26%), neglect (17%), and physical abuse (9%). These violent acts (between March 21st to April 26th, 2020) occurred 1–3 times among (75%) of the COVID-19 domestic abuse victims, 4–6 among (19%), and (7+) times among (7%) (Center for Strategic Studies-Jordan 2020 ). Additionally, since the beginning of 2021 until November 23, 2021, 15 family murders were reported (Sisterhood is Global Institute-Jordan 2021b ).

Jordanian husbands confirmed that poverty, insufficient salary, wives’ money spending habits and not considering the negative economic effects of COVID-19 on their work led to their abusive behavior and violent response (Alsawalqa 2021a ). The patriarchal structure in the Jordanian society requires men to adhere to masculine standards and ideals of “true manhood,” which require men to be strong, independent, emotionally restrained, tough, and assume responsibility for leadership, family care, and financial support, given that they occupy a higher rank than women. Masculinity has social advantages and entitlements, the most prominent of which are male control, ownership, and dominance. If men are unable to achieve these standards, society can confront them with humiliation, marginalization, stigmatization, and blame (particularly from their wives). This can make them feel shame, disgrace, sadness, depression, failure, status frustration, anxiety, fear of the future, and low self-esteem. Couples express these negative feelings through aggressive and violent behaviors (Alsawalqa et al. 2021 ; Alsawalqa and Alrawashdeh 2022 ).

Additionally, some wives (working and non-working) were unable to repay their loans, especially their loans from microfinance institutions. These financial institutions provide loans and financial facilities to specific economic sectors (such as agriculture) and groups of the population (such as women, the poor, and artisans). These institutions have been excessive in lending to women for consumption purposes at the expense of productive projects and have been unable to lift women out of poverty and empower them economically. Owing to the existence of a major defect in the legislative system, lending conditions, and the economic repercussions of the COVID-19 pandemic, women borrowers (known as “female debtors,” or Algharimat in Arabic) were subjected to legal accountability and imprisonment if they failed to pay back the debt (Jordanian Economic and Social Council 2020b ). Notably, some husbands or fathers forced their wives to borrow because of poverty by dominating or exercising coercive control over the women; some women borrowed voluntarily with the aim of improving the family income. If women refuse to contribute to the household income or borrow money, they can face physical, verbal, psychological, and economic abuse.

Moreover, if women borrow money (which subjects them to legal accountability) without the knowledge of her husband or male guardian, it can expose them to more violence, because men can consider this act as a violation of their control which can cause a scandal or encourage stigma (Sa’deh, 2022 ). Jordanian working women who are married and live in rural and urban areas have encountered spousal economic abuse through control of their economic resources, management of their financial decisions, and exploitation of their economic resources. Moreover, they have endured emotional, psychological, and physical abuse, and harassment as tactics by husbands to reinforce their economic abuse and maintain control over them (Alsawalqa 2021b ). Peterman et al. ( 2020 ) indicated that the increased violence against women and children during the pandemic was associated with economic insecurity and poverty-related stress, lockdowns, social isolation, exploitative relationships, and reduced health and domestic support options.

The Information and Research Center - King Hussein Foundation (IRCKHF) and Hivos report ( 2020 : p. 4, 14) on the double burden of women in Jordan during COVID-19, showed that in times of disease outbreaks, most women take up greater responsibilities and are often overburdened with paid and unpaid work, which impacts their overall well-being. Unpaid work within the home, sometimes referred to as reproductive work, includes a variety of tasks such as childbearing and caring, preparing meals, cleaning, doing laundry, maintaining the house, and taking care of older adults or disabled family members, among others. Although paid work is tied to a monetary value, unpaid work is usually not recognized as “real work”. Moreover, the new e-learning systems resulted in parents, especially mothers, spending a lot of time ensuring that their children were learning and following up on their schoolwork. Some parents worried about the future of their children’s education; the closure of schools and nurseries created an additional burden for working parents who had to find childcare solutions while they went to work. These additional burdens created new psychological pressures and increased the problem of violence among family members. Married Jordanian women, particularly those who work and are educated, often face conflicts in the economic, political, and socio-cultural aspects (Alsawalqa 2016 ). Moreover, they experience Marriage and emotional burnout that worsens with the increase in the number of children, which negatively affects their health and leads to headaches, eating disorders, irregular heart rate, stomach pain, and so on (Alsawalqa, 2019 ; Alsawalqa, 2017 ). These problems contribute to a higher marriage burnout rate among spouses, particularly among those who work full-time jobs, have been married for ≥ 10 years, and have children. Marriage burnout is a painful state of emotional exhaustion, with physical and emotional depletion experienced by spouses. This state results from emotional exhaustion, work exhaustion, and failure to fulfill the requirements (particularly emotional requirements) of the marriage (Alsawalqa 2019 ).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic did not create new motives for DV in Jordan but contributed to its negative economic and psychological repercussions in exacerbating and confirming the pre-existing motives. The patriarchal structure and gender stereotypes in Jordanian society that establish the relationships between men and women based on coercive control produced prejudices that led to social injustice and gender inequality and made both sexes victims of DV. Individuals in Jordanian societies employed the norms, ideas, and values of the patriarchal culture to negatively adapt to the adverse economic and psychological effects of the pandemic, leading to more cases of DV.

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed the weak economic and social structures in place before the crisis and their negative impact during the pandemic, such as women’s poor economic participation, the gender gap in the labor market, high income tax, high cost of living, administrative and financial corruption, a weak labor market and infrastructure, and high rates of unemployment and poverty. This study highlighted the need for serious participatory work from the government and civil society organizations based on scientific research and approaches to change the cultural and social norms that reinforce patriarchal domination and stereotypes that perpetuate the gender gap. One way of achieving this is through the educational curricula in schools and universities; educating individuals on how to deal with life pressures; choosing a life partner; understanding the motives for marriage and the foundations for successful and healthy relationships, and raising children; and positive social self-development. We recommend supporting the efforts of the Jordanian government to continue the process of development and diligently follow up on the implementation of the directives and vision of His Majesty Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein, King of Jordan, on economic, political, and administrative reform, activating the role of youth and empowering women. We realize that social and cultural change, and the reforming of sectors is not an easy task and requires tremendous efforts over a long period.

Implications of the study

Considering the current study results, a follow-up study to highlight the lack of conceptual clarity on DV Against Women and its various forms is recommended. Future research must carefully study the behaviors involved in each form of DV and identify the abuser of women as this will help in developing effective policies and practices to reduce or end DV against women. In addition, it would contribute to directing researchers via a correct scientific methodology as they study women’s resistance to violence, and educating women to understand forms of violence and seek the most appropriate resistance strategies to reduce or end it, and avoid involvement in the cycle of violence. Moreover, we recommend paying attention to conducting more studies on DV against males by their wives, mothers, or intimate partners, and DV against the elderly, which will contribute to understanding the factors and forms of domestic violence in more detail. We believe that these aforementioned suggestions will aid in formulating the best intervention strategies.

To reduce DV in Jordan, it is necessary to implementing courses and workshops for women, girls, and males, especially in rural areas, aiming to increase their awareness about the motives for marriage and the foundations of choosing a suitable partner, how to manage emotions, and resist and reduce violence. Additionally, promoting anti-gender discrimination thinking in educational curricula in universities and schools. Moreover, remove obstacles in implementing the Law on Protection from DV, and not to waive personal rights in crimes of DV. In addition, rehabilitation for victims and perpetrators of violence.

Data availability

All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

AbuTayeh AM (2021) Socio-economic constraints Jordanian women had encountered as a result of COVID-19 pandemic, and coping mechanisms. Asian Soc Sci 17:63–76. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v17n10p63

Article   Google Scholar  

Abufaraj M, Eyadat Z, Al-Sabbagh MQ, Nimer A, Moonesar IA, Yang L et al. (2021) Gender-based disparities on health indices during COVID-19 crisis: A nationwide cross-sectional study in Jordan. Int J Equity Health 20:91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-021-01435-0

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Abuhammad S (2021) Violence against Jordanian women during COVID-19 outbreak. Int J Clin Pract 75:e13824. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijcp.13824

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Abuhammad S, Khabour OF, Alomari MA, Alzoubi KH (2022) Depression, stress, anxiety among Jordanian people during COVID-19 pandemic: A survey-based study. Inf Med Unlocked 30:100936. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.imu.2022.100936

Abujilban S, Mrayan L, Hamaideh S, Obeisat S, Damra J (2022) Intimate partner violence against pregnant Jordanian women at the time of COVID-19 pandemic’s quarantine. J Interpers Violence 37:NP2442–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520984259

Alijla A (2021) Possibilities and challenges: Social protection and COVID-19 crisis in Jordan. Civ, 1. https://doi.org/10.28943/CSKC.002.90003

Al-Nimri N (2019). Adoption of national legislation to strengthen the family and child protection system: The amended Domestic Violence Protection Law is among the most prominent national social achievements. Al Ghad. [Accessed 10 February 2022]. https://alghad.com/

Alsawalqa RO (2021a) A qualitative study to investigate male victims’ experiences of female-perpetrated domestic abuse in Jordan Curr Psychol 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01905-2

Alsawalqa RO, Al Qaralleh AS, Al-Asasfeh AM (2022a) The Threat of the COVID-19 Pandemic to Human Rights: Jordan as a Model. J Hum Rights Soc Work 7:265–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-021-00203-y

Alsawalqa RO (2021b) Women’s abuse experiences in Jordan: A comparative study using rural and urban classifications. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8:186. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00853-3

Alsawalqa RO, Alrawashdeh MN, Sa’deh YAR, Abuanzeh A (2022b) Exploring Jordanian women’s resistance strategies to domestic violence: A scoping review. Front Socio. 7:1026408. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.1026408

Alsawalqa RO, Alrawashdeh MN, Hasan S (2021) Understanding the Man Box: The link between gender socialization and domestic violence in Jordan. Heliyon 7:e08264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08264

Alsawalqa RO, Alrawashdeh MN (2022) The role of patriarchal structure and gender stereotypes in cyber dating abuse: A qualitative examination of male perpetrators experiences. Br J Socio 73:587–606. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12946

Alsawalqa R (2016) Social change and conflict of values among educated women in Jordanian society: A comparative study. Dirasat Hum Soc Sci 43:2067–93

Alsawalqa RO (2017) Emotional burnout among working wives: Dimensions and effect. Can Soc Sci 13:58–69

Google Scholar  

Alsawalqa RO(2019) Marriage burnout: When the emotions exhausted quietly quantitative research Iran J Psychiatry Behav Sci 13:e68833. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs.68833

Anderson K (2020) Daring to Ask, Listen, and Act: A Snapshot of the Impacts of COVID-19 on Women and Girls’ Rights and Sexual and Reproductive Health [Report]. United Nations Fund for Population Activities, Geneva, https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/20200511_Daring%20to%20ask%20Rapid%20Assessment%20Report_FINAL.pdf

Aolymat I (2020) A cross-sectional study of the impact of COVID-19 on domestic violence, menstruation, genital tract health, and contraception use among women in Jordan. Am J Trop Med Hyg 104:519–25. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.20-1269

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Al-Tammemi AB (2020) The battle against COVID-19 in Jordan: An early overview of the Jordanian experience. Front Public Health 8:188. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00188

Baybars S (2021) The World Bank: Corona’s Repercussions Have Raised the Poverty Rate in Jordan. https://alghad.com . [Accessed 10 February 2022]

Celegence (2022) PRISMA flow diagram – CAPTIS™ features. https://www.celegence.com/prisma-flow-diagram/ . Accessed May 2022

Center for Strategic Studies-Jordan (2020). Coronavirus lockdown exacerbating domestic violence in Jordan. Jordan’s barometer: The pulse of the Jordanian street– (20). Hivos [Study]. https://www.cawtarclearinghouse.org/

Darwish R (2020) 2020 Was Not a Perfect Year for Jordanian Women. https://www.bbc.com/arabic/middleeast-55468564 . [Accessed 10 February 2022]

Department of Statistics, Jordan [DOS] (2018) Jordan population and family and health survey 2017–18: key indicators. DOS and ICF, Amman, Jordan, and Rockville, MD, USA, http://www.dos.gov.jo/dos_home_a/main/linked-html/DHS2017_en.pdf

Department of Statistics (DoS) (2020) Unemployment Rate During the First Quarter of 2020 – Official Report. http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/unemp_q12020

Department of Statistics (DoS). (2021). Unemployment Rate During the First Quarter of 2021 –official Report. http://dos.gov.jo/dos_home_a/main/archive/unemp/2021/Emp_Q12021.pdf

EuroMed Rights (2018) Situation Report on Violence against Women: Legislative Framework. Report Online, Retrievedِ April 2020. https://euromedrights.org

CASP website (2022).CASP Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research. Retrieved May 2022. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/

Gresham AM, Peters BJ, Karantzas G, Cameron LD, Simpson JA (2021) Examining associations between COVID-19 stressors, intimate partner violence, health, and health behaviors. J Soc Personal Relat 38:2291–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211012098

Higher Population Council (HPC) (2021) Jordan joins the world in commemorating the International Day of Non-Violence. https://www.hpc.org.jo/en/content/jordan-joins-world-commemorating-international-day-non-violence . [Accessed 10 February 2022]

IRCKHF and Hivos (2020) COVID-19 and the Double Burden on Women in Jordan. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands [Report], Hivos, https://irckhf.org/projects/covid-19-and-the-double-burden-on-women-in-jordan/

Jordan Economic Forum (2020) Unemployment in Jordan: Reality, expectations and proposals. https://soundcloud.com/jordaneconomicforum-jef/5xedpqmblc51

Jordan Labor Watch J (2020) Unprecedented Challenges for Workers in Jordan: A Report on the Occasion of International Labor Day. http://phenixcenter.net/

Jordanian Economic & Social Council (2020a) Impact of COVID-19 on Gender Roles and Violence Against Women -Results from Jordan [Study]. Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. https://jordan.un.org/

Jordanian Economic & Social Council (2020b). Gender-related impacts of Coronavirus pandemic in the areas of health, domestic violence and the economy in Jordan. Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan: Amman. https://jordan.unwomen.org/

Jordanian Juvenile and Family Protection Department (2020). Digital statistics. https://www.psd.gov.jo/en-us/content/digital-statistics/ . [Accessed 10 February 2022]

Kataybeh Y (2021) Male Violence Against Women: An Exploratory Study of Its Manifestations, Causes, and Discrepancies over Jordanian Women under Corona Pandemic. Preprints 1. https://pesquisa.bvsalud.org/global-literature-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/resource/pt/ppzbmed-10.20944.preprints202104.0695.v1?lang=en

Kaur R, Garg S (2008) Addressing domestic violence against women: an unfinished agenda. Indian J Community Med: official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine 33(2):73–76. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-0218.40871

Leslie E, Wilson R (2020) Sheltering in place and domestic violence: Evidence from calls for service during COVID-19. J Public Econ (2020) 189:104241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2020.104241

Macquarie University Library (2023) Systematic reviews: PRISMA flow diagram & diagram generator tool. https://libguides.mq.edu.au/systematic_reviews/prisma_screen . Accessed May 2024

Massad I, Al-Taher R, Massad F, Al-Sabbagh MQ, Haddad M, Abufaraj M (2022) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health: Early quarantine-related anxiety and its correlates among Jordanians. East Mediterr Health J 26:1165–72. https://doi.org/10.26719/emhj.20.115

Ministry of Social Development (2022) Care homes for family harmony for women whose lives are at risk. http://mosd.gov.jo

National Council for Family Affairs (2013). Socioeconomic characteristics of domestic violence cases [Study]. [Accessed 10 February 2022]. https://ncfa.org.jo/uploads/2020/07/ab0d5083-3d7e-5f1feb76ebd1.pdf

National Council for Family Affairs. (2022). Domestic violence in Jordan: Knowledge, reality. Trends. [Accessed 10 February 2022]. https://ncfa.org.jo/uploads/2020/07/38ceffed-d7a4-5f1ffdb3f907.pdf

Pedrosa AL, Bitencourt L, Fróes ACF, Cazumbá MLB, Campos RGB, de Brito SBCS et al. (2020) Emotional, behavioral, and psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Psychol 11:566212. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566212

Peterman A, Potts A, O’Donnell M, Thompson K, Shah N, OerteltPrigione S, et al. (2020). Pandemics and violence against women and children. Center for Global Development Working Paper 528. http://iawmh.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/pandemics-and-vawg-april2.pdf . [Accessed 24 September, 2022]

PRISMA (2020) The NEW Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website. https://www.prisma-statement.org . Retrievedِ february 2021

Public Security Directorate (2022) Juvenile and Family Protection Department. https://www.psd.gov.jo/en-us/psd-department-s/family-and-juvenile-protection-department/ . Accessed 10 February 2022

Qudsieh S, Mahfouz IA, Qudsieh H, Barbarawi LA, Asali F, Al-Zubi M et al. (2022) The impact of the coronavirus pandemic curfew on the psychosocial lives of pregnant women in Jordan. Midwifery 109:103317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.midw.2022.103317

Raouf M, Elsabbagh D, Wiebelt M (2020) Impact of COVID-19 on the Jordanian Economy: Economic Sectors, Food Systems, and Households (Projest Paper). The International Food Policy Research Institute. https://doi.org/10.2499/p15738coll2.134132

Refaqat S, Janzer-Araji A, Mahmood A, Kim J (2022) Jordan economic Monitor. Spring. DC: World Bank Group. (2022): Global Turbulence Dampens Recovery and Job Creation (English).Jordan Economic Monitor, Washington, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099410007122222740/IDU05823c2b70646004a400b9fa0477cea7736a4

Sa’deh Y (2022) Economic abuse from a gender perspective: A qualitative study on female debtors “Algharimat” in Jordan [unpublished Master’s thesis]. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Qatar

Sisterhood is global institute-Jordan (SIGI) (2021a). What do the Numbers tell us about Injuries and Deaths: An Analytical Reading from a Gender Perspective (Facts Paper). [Accessed 12 March 2022]. https://www.sigi-jordan.org/?p=10613

Sisterhood is global institute-Jordan (SIGI). (2021b). 47% of Women in Jordan Have Their Voices Unheard and Their Sufferings Unseen with Regard to Domestic Violence [Report] https://www.unicef.org/jordan/media/3041/file/Socio%20Economic%20Assessment.pdf

Suleiman YA, Abdel-Qader DH, Suleiman BA, Suleiman AH, Hamadi S, Al Meslamani AZ (2022) Evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on mental health of the public in Jordan: A cross-sectional study. J Pharm Pharmacogn Res 10:196–205. https://doi.org/10.56499/jppres21.1191_10.2.196

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

The Jordanian National Commission for Women (2020). National strategy for women in Jordan (2020–2025). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1309642?ln=en

The Jordanian National Commission for Women, (1998). A preliminary report on the implementation of the Beijing Approach. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1309642?ln=en

Thomas, H (2003). Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies. Effective public health practice project. Hamilton, ON, Canada: McMaster University. https://www.ephpp.ca/PDF/Quality%20Assessment%20Tool_2010_2.pdf

UNDP (2020). COVID-19 Impact on Households in Jordan: A rapid assessment. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/migration/arabstates/UNDP-Impact-of-COVID-19-on-Households-General-21-FINAL-21-May.pdf . [Accessed 10 February 2022]

UNICEF (2020). Socio-Economic Assessment of Children and Youth in the time of COVID-19. Jordan Publishing [Study]. https://www.unicef.org/jordan/media/3041/file/Socio%20Economic%20Assessment.pdf

United Nations. (2022). What is domestic abuse? https://www.un.org/en/coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse [Accessed 12 March 2022]

Women UN (2021). Measuring the Shadow Pandemic: Violence Against Women During COVID-19 [Report]. https://data.unwomen.org/sites/default/files/documents/Publications/Measuring-shadow-pandemic.pdf . [Accessed 12 March 2022]

World Health Organization (2020) COVID-19 and violence against women in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. Report Online, Retrieved February 2022. https://pmnch.who.int/docs/librariesprovider9/meeting-reports/covid-19-and-violence-against-women-in-emro.pdf?sfvrsn=970ca82e_3

Xue J, Chen J, Chen C, Hu R, Zhu T (2020) The hidden pandemic of family violence during COVID-19: Unsupervised learning of tweets. J. Med Internet Res 22:e24361. https://doi.org/10.2196/24361

Ziyadat A (2021) Domestic violence: Murders rise in Jordan during Corona. The New Press, Arab, https://www.alaraby.co.uk/society/

Zoud B (2021). How did Corona raise the rate of Child marriage in Jordan? Ammannet. https://tinyurl.com/yz5549an . [Accessed 12 March 2022]

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to Editage ( www.editage.com ) for their help with English language editing, and proofreading.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, School of Arts, The University of Jordan, Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Maissa N. Alrawashdeh

Department of Sociology, The University of Jordan, Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Rula Odeh Alsawalqa

Al- Balqa’ Applied University, Amman, Jordan

Rami Aljbour

Department of Social Work, School of Arts, The University of Jordan, Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Ann Alnajdawi

School of Arts, The University of Jordan, Amman, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan

Fawzi Khalid AlTwahya

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, MA, ROA; Methodology, MA, ROA, AA, RA; Resources, MA, ROA, AA, RA, FA; Writing—original draft preparation, MA, RA, AA; Writing—review and editing, All authors; Project administration MA, ROA. Correspondence to ROA. All authors have read and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rula Odeh Alsawalqa .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

Additional information.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Alrawashdeh, M.N., Alsawalqa, R.O., Aljbour, R. et al. Domestic violence against women during the COVID19 pandemic in Jordan: a systematic review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11 , 598 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03117-y

Download citation

Received : 12 June 2023

Accepted : 24 April 2024

Published : 09 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03117-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• About The British Journal of Social Work
• About the British Association of Social Workers
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, literature review, barriers to support arising from covid-19, facilitating engagement during covid-19, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Social Workers Response to Domestic Violence and Abuse during the COVID-19 Pandemic

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Stephanie Holt, Ruth Elliffe, Soma Gregory, Philip Curry, Social Workers Response to Domestic Violence and Abuse during the COVID-19 Pandemic, The British Journal of Social Work , Volume 53, Issue 1, January 2023, Pages 386–404, https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcac119

• Permissions Icon Permissions

The rapid global spread of COVID-19 has put increased pressure on health and social service providers, including social workers who continued front line practice throughout the pandemic, engaging with some of the most vulnerable in society often experiencing multiple adversities alongside domestic violence and abuse (DVA). Movement restrictions and stay-at-home orders introduced to slow the spread of the virus, paradoxically leave these families at even greater risk from those within the home. Utilising a survey methodology combining both open- and closed-ended questions, this study captured a picture of social work practice in Ireland with families experiencing DVA during the early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings highlight both the changes and challenges in work practices and procedures that limit social work assessment and quality contact with families, changes to the help-seeking behaviours from victims/survivors, as well as emerging innovative practice responses with enhanced use of technology. Implications for practice include an increased awareness of the risk and prevalence of DVA accelerated by the pandemic. Conclusions assert that social work assessment and intervention with families experiencing DVA must remain adaptive to the changing COVID-19 context and continue to develop innovative practice approaches.

Ireland’s public health response to COVID-19 from the onset of the pandemic in February 2020, reflected strict regimes of lockdown for longer periods than seen elsewhere in Europe. Three lockdown periods over an eighteen-month time span (first wave: February–June 2020; second wave: September–December 2020 and third wave: January–July 2021) imposed restrictive measures including no visitors to households, no sporting events, only essential retail allowed to open, closure of hospitality and schools and stay-at-home orders within two kilometres and five kilometres limits. Whilst stay-at-home orders, working from home and school closures have been linked with increased risk for child abuse ( Self-Brown et al. , 2022 ). Wood et al. (2020) highlight increases in both the severity and rate of domestic abuse and sexual assault following such measures related to COVID-19. James-Hanman’s (2018) insights on how domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and coercive control can make the victim’s world smaller and restrict their space for action ( Kelly, 2003 ), takes on a particular resonance in the COVID-19 context, where public health measures have paradoxically contributed to increases in the frequency and severity of DVA. With home confinement providing DVA perpetrators with increased opportunities for surveillance, stalking and coercive control ( Bracewell et al. , 2020 ), the stay-at-home messaging, reduced professional and service availability and the complexity of help seeking and the leaving process may render victims unnoticed and trapped at a time of increased risk and reduced options ( Goodman and Epstein, 2020 ).

Emerging research in Ireland ( Holt et al , 2021 ) and internationally ( McKibbin et al , 2021 ; Stanley et al. , 2021 ) highlights interesting developments in DVA practice and policy during COVID-19 of relevance to this article on social work practice. Powerful awareness raising campaigns have both enhanced public understanding of this issue whilst also sending a clear message to victims that help was at hand ( Holt et al. , 2021 ), contributing no doubt to escalating reported rates of DVA globally ( Bradbury-Jones and Isham, 2020 ). Simultaneous innovations in technologically mediated service delivery and communication technologies have opened up creative opportunities for emergency adaptive changes to social work practice, with debates and concerns about technologically driven service delivery remaining unresolved ( Chen et al. , 2020 ). Indeed, whilst the International Federation of Social Workers reported on innovative social work practice responses to increased DVA victimisation ( Truell, 2020 ), concurrent ethical challenges for practice have also emerged ( Banks et al. , 2020 ), including reduced service capacity and increased remote working ( Cortis et al. , 2021 ).

Whilst research relevant to DVA, COVID-19 and social work practice was conducted in other jurisdictions early in the pandemic ( Overlien, 2020 ; Posick et al. , 2020 ), less available is empirical data pertaining to how social work practice in Ireland has been impacted by and responded to the issue of DVA on caseloads during this time. This present study seeks to address this knowledge gap in an Irish social work context. The COVID-19 lockdown period in Ireland refers to the period commencing 27 March 2020 (First wave) continuing through to November 2020 (second wave). Ireland like elsewhere during these initial periods of tight restrictions, witnessed a surge in demand for DVA support services. During the first lockdown period, Safe Ireland (2020) reported 1,351 unmet requests for refuge accommodation and a noticeable increase in first time contacts to specialist DVA services. Similarly, An Garda Síochána, the Irish police force, reported a 16 per cent increase in calls to respond to DVA in 2020 compared to the previous year ( An Garda Síochána, 2020 ).

Indeed, reflecting a general rise and heightened awareness for those living with DVA during this period, the Irish courts service remained open; however, restrictions were reported to make attending court difficult for victims and created undue stress in situations of court mandated access between abusers and children ( Women’s Aid, 2020 ). Whilst the international literature utilises a broad range of terminology depending on the country where the research was conducted, this article uses the term DVA to refer to patterns of abusive and controlling behaviour that include but also extend beyond physical force, beyond the home and beyond the cessation of the intimate relationship.

This brief overview of the literature will firstly identify how the pandemic provided a particularly perfect context where DVA acted ‘like an opportunistic infection, flourishing in the conditions created by the pandemic’ ( Sharma and Bikash Borah, 2022 , p. 2). Escalating risk of abuse for both women and children will be explored before the review unpacks the challenges and opportunities for social work practice during COVID-19.

The pandemic as an incubator for DVA

Two systematic reviews published in 2021 provide interesting insights and analysis on the prevalence and nature of DVA during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Kourti et al. , 2021 ; Piquero et al. , 2021 ). Both papers report an increase in domestic violence globally, with Kourti et al. (2021) asserting these increases were found across both stronger and more compromised economic states. Drilling down into these increased prevalence rates, Piquero et al. (2021) surmise that increased reporting may result from first an increased number of victims seeking formal support and protection, secondly the emergence of a new cohort of victims whose experiences of DVA are largely related to pandemic-related stresses including stay-at-home orders and economic constraints, and thirdly, those existing victims for whom the pandemic has served as a catalyst to report victimisation, perhaps due to increases in incidence and severity of abuse. The gendered and intersectional nature of DVA was also discussed in both papers, with Kourti et al. (2021) highlighting how women primarily shouldered the burden of domestic and caring responsibilities and Piquero et al. (2021) noting that typically marginalised groups were likely to be disproportionately isolated and at risk of DVA during the pandemic. These marginalised groups were asserted to include older adults, women, children, immigrants, refugees and those for whom English was not their first language.

Stark’s (2013 , p.18) much quoted definition of coercive control as ‘a strategic course of oppressive conduct that is typically characterized by frequent, but low-level physical abuse and sexual coercion in combination with tactics to intimidate, degrade, isolate, and control victims’, aptly describes the pandemic as a further tool for perpetrators to exercise their power ( Lyons and Brewer, 2021 ). It also aligns with Bergman et al. ’s (2021) observation that anything, including a pandemic, can be employed resourcefully by the abuser to control. Reporting on a survey of Domestic and Family Violence workers in Australia, Carrington et al. (2020) concluded that DVA perpetrators were ‘weaponising’ COVID-19 conditions to maximise opportunities for coercive and controlling behaviours.

Reflecting on the established role of isolation as a primary tactic used by perpetrators of DVA, Sharma and Bikash Borah (2022) usefully identify the correlation between physical isolation as a government-sanctioned approach to COVID-19-related safety measures and increases in DVA perpetration and negative impacts for victims and children. Specifically, the social support normally available to people in times of crisis, were no longer readily available during the pandemic, with lockdown effectively padlocking victims into intensifying and escalating abusive home environments. Compounding this, Lyons and Brewer (2021) assert that compliance with quarantine rules meant increased time at home enhanced opportunities for surveillance, reinforcing accepted tactics associated with DVA. Goodman and Epstein (2020 , p. 2) conclude that such tactics are ‘near-perfect parallels of pandemic safety measures; restricting visitors and deliveries, preventing survivors from caring for family (and vice versa), cancelling appointments and prohibiting errands, monitoring activity, and refusing to allow survivors to work outside the home’. Perpetrator enforced isolation may, to the untrained eye, appear reasonable and compliant with public safety narratives. The toxic combination of quarantine, lockdown, restricted social/family support and remote working which occur in the context of DVA, Goodman and Epstein (2020) caution, may result in a less visible pandemic-related harm; extreme loneliness. Participants in their study talked about being ‘unseen’, where their partner has cut her off from all contacts and activities that give her a sense of grounding and subjective awareness. Similarly, both Kourti et al. (2021) and Piquero et al. (2021) draw on previous health crises or natural disasters, highlighting the correlation between the consequences of these disasters (including isolation and DVA) and the impact on women’s physical and mental health.

Focusing on children, Sharma and Bikash Borah (2022) highlight school closures and the absence of childcare options increasing stress for parents and potentially exposing children more intensively to violence and abuse without the sanctuary of school and other leisure activities. Jacob (2020) further cautions that school closures have removed the protective role of teachers as important ‘eyes and ears’ for abuse identification. Similarly, Griffith (2020) suggests that lockdown, reduced social support and remote working may be considered risk factors associated with parental burnout, cautioning that parents who experience burnout are more likely to abuse their children. Staying with the issue of parental abuse and neglect of children, Jacob’s (2020) paper accurately captures the concerns of practitioners working in child health settings. Amongst these concerns were delayed presentations of children to these settings resulting in more serious illness, reduced consultant and home visiting time for new-borns and their parents, perinatal mental health issues and very young children presenting to hospital with injuries typical of abuse.

Donagh (2020 , p. 387) concludes that the impact of the pandemic has meant that children and young people living with DVA have gone from ‘being unnoticed to invisible’. Whilst there are opportunities for many health and social care professionals to intervene in the lives of perpetrators, victims and their children who live with DVA, the implications for social work practice responses during the pandemic, is the focus of the next section.

Social work practice in COVID-19: Challenges and opportunities

The COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing lockdown radically changed the way social workers and a range of other health and social care practitioners across all settings and across the globe, engaged with their clients—individuals, children and families ( Cook and Zschomler, 2020 ). All but the most urgent home visits or office appointments moved into a range of virtual spaces, with the now popular term ‘pivot to online’ described by Mishna et al. (2022 , p.17) as a radical ‘paradigm shift in ICT use’ with the absence of face-to-face practice, rapidly replaced with the adoption of new ICT practices, such as FaceTime, WhatsApp, Skype, Google Hangouts, Microsoft Teams and Zoom ( Cook and Zschomler, 2020 ).

Pre-pandemic research and commentary had already signposted the impact of ‘electronic communication technologies’ on relationship-based practice for social workers ( Byrne and Kirwan, 2019 , p. 218). Drawing on the findings of their research with newly qualified social workers and with seemingly incredible foresight, Byrne and Kirwan (2019) caution that the relational foundation of social work practice is ‘not immune or dislocated from the explosion of social media and electronic communication’, which had been galvanising energy well before ‘COVID-19’ was in our everyday vocabulary. Indeed whilst telephone helplines have a long history in providing support and counselling ( Bayles, 2012 ; Reeves, 2015 ) there nonetheless exists a tension in the literature and perhaps in practice between the importance or ‘deeply embodied’ practice of home visiting for social work practice ( Ferguson, 2018 , p. 65) and the use of remote technology enhanced practice as amplified since the start of COVID-19. Arguing that the home ‘constitutes a sphere of practice in its own right’, Ferguson (2018 , p. 67) is interested in how social workers ‘work’ the house, a question that Roberts (2020) later reflects on in the context of social workers conducting home visits in full personal protective equipment where parents or children cannot see their face. Ferguson’s (2018) assertion of the home visit as a context where all the senses come into play, chimes with Ruch et al. ’s (2010 , p. 16) much earlier argument for the need for social workers to attend to the ‘social contexts in which people’s difficulties are located’. The challenge of ‘working the home’ as Ferguson articulated, using all of your senses and engaging with ‘context’, takes on a particular significance when we consider the centrality of risk assessment and safety planning in social work practice with families experiencing DVA.

Since the emergence of the pandemic there has been a growing body of empirical research on social work practice during COVID-19, and on the specific nature of professional practice with families experiencing DVA ( Banks et al. , 2020 ; Cheung, 2021 ). The challenges of social work practice in the pivot to online have been clearly articulated, as have the benefits of virtual contact as a preferred form of contact, especially for young people ( Cook and Zschomler, 2020 ). Whilst the existing literature highlights the need for research with children and families on their experience of the pivot to online, it also stresses the importance of adequate training and supervision of professionals in this predominantly online space. Harrikari et al. ’s (2021 , p. 1660) research on social work practice in Finland, concluded that social work was ‘completely unprepared’ for the working conditions provoked by the pandemic but nonetheless adapted and responded very quickly. In agreement, Cook and Zschomler (2020) assert that the pivot to online presented a real challenge to the core principles and values of social work practice, the possibilities that virtual practice opened up were also applauded. Pfitzner et al. (2022) survey research with practitioners supporting women experiencing DVA during the pandemic in Australia, provides evidence of how increased prevalence rates and help-seeking, pushed practitioner capacity to its limits, with resulting concerns for practitioner mental health and well-being. Specifically, the authors call for regular supervision and balanced workloads in addition to increased evidence of what best practice in this space should reflect. Returning to Byrne and Kirwan’s (2019) assertion that modalities of electronic communication should not be understood as an add-on to practice rather as an integral part of it going forward, this brief literature review concludes by concurring with Cheung’s (2021) call for the professional to reposition itself in the reflective process of considering how social work ethics and values and be maintained in this new space. The research we are reporting on in this article is a first step in understanding how social work practitioners experienced working with DVA in that new space during the earliest period of COVID-19 lockdown in Ireland.

Similar to Cortis et al. (2021) who surveyed domestic violence practitioners, this study gathered both quantitative and qualitative data via a national survey of social workers to establish the extent and nature of DVA in social work practice during the initial period of COVID-19 ‘lockdown’ restrictions. The Irish Association of Social Workers (IASW) distributed an email about the survey to their membership of over 1,300 social workers. This email contained a link to a questionnaire hosted by Survey Monkey. Data was collected between the 1 September 2020 and 12 November 2020. The IASW sent prompt emails to their membership on the 10 and 22 September 2020.

Survey instrument

The survey instrument was designed using emerging evidence from research conducted on DVA and social work practice at the beginning of the pandemic, as well as research evidence on DVA and COVID-19 from that time. The survey instrument contained twenty-two items, which comprised of both open and closed questions (see Supplementary Data for full survey questions and responses).

Data analysis

The quantitative data from the survey questionnaires was analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 25. Key findings were identified and provided by way of mainly descriptive statistics in the context of the overall research questions ( Creswell and Plano Clark, 2007 ). Owing to a low response rate, which is discussed later, the use of inferential statistics was not appropriate. With regard to the qualitative data collected through open-ended questions and free-text boxes throughout the survey, a thematic analysis was used to analyse this data ( Braun and Clarke, 2006 ). Braun and Clarke’s (2006) six phases for conducting a thematic analysis were observed. Initially the data were assessed and broad themes were identified. Further to this and in combination with the research aims, a data coding system was developed. The data were entered into the coding framework using QDA Miner Lite software and was systematically reviewed, compared and sorted into broad thematic areas as they emerged. By the end of the process of analysis, three main themes were identified; the nature of DVA during COVID-19; barriers to support during COVID-19 and facilitating engagement during COVID-19. In collecting and analysing the quantitative and qualitative survey data together in this manner complementarity was achieved and the findings have been enriched by the use of this method ( Teddlie and Tashakkori, 2009 ).

Sampling, access and ethical issues

Research participants were sampled from the population of social workers currently working in Ireland. In order to access this sample, the IASW agreed to distribute the questionnaire to its members. Whilst it is acknowledged that the membership of the IASW does not include all social workers in Ireland, it nonetheless represents high numbers of social workers and provided a means of inviting participation from social workers throughout the jurisdiction.

Respondents to the questionnaire were not required to provide their name or the name of their agency. Rather, information relating to the county or region where their agency of employment is located was gathered. No identifying data were requested or if provided inadvertently in respondents’ answers, this was not coded or referred to in the research findings. Of the 120 social work respondents, 105 identified as female and 14 as male ( n  = 1 missing) and ranged in age from twenty to sixty plus years. Respondents were largely highly experienced with 60.2 per cent having ten or more years working in professional practice, 22.0 per cent reported five to ten years in practice and a relatively smaller number 5.9 per cent reported three to four years practice experience.

Ethical approval to conduct the research was provided by the Research Ethics Committee within the School of Social Work and Social Policy, Trinity College Dublin.

Research aims and objectives

This article draws on the survey data to address the following research questions:

What was the nature and extent of DVA in families on social work caseloads during COVID-19 lockdown when compared to caseloads pre-COVID-19?

What, if any, were the main challenges experienced by social work practitioners working with families experiencing DVA during COVID-19 lockdown?

What, if any, new or innovative social work practices did practitioners engage in with families experiencing DVA during COVID-19 lockdown?

Nature of DVA during COVID-19

Survey responses attest to an overall perceived increase in the level of DVA present in social work caseloads during the initial phases of lockdown. Comparing before and during the first phases of COVID-19 restrictions, practitioners were asked to estimate the rate of DVA in caseloads with figures, reporting an overall average increase from 24.7 per cent pre-COVID-19 to 31.3 per cent during COVID-19.

Qualitative data drawn from open-ended questions revealed some instances of male to male, child to parent and adult-child to parent DVA. However, the vast majority of DVA described by the social workers was male to female intimate partner or ex-partner abuse.

When asked to compare which forms of DVA had increased, stayed the same or decreased since the pandemic, the most notable perceived increases were in coercive control and emotional abuse which were reported to have increased by 76.4 per cent and 82.8 per cent, respectively, pointing to changes in the nature of DVA during this period. Table 1 sets out practitioners’ responses to this question.

Q3 Estimated changes in forms of DVA during COVID-19.

Significant increase in perpetrators not allowing SWs into home to see partners or children. Reason generally being COVID-19, they won’t allow anyone in. (SW1078—Child Protection and Welfare)

Have been more vigilant with assessing risk as heightened violence and abuse levels can go unnoticed more when people aren’t mixing with friends or family. (SW1101—Mental Health)

In Q7, respondents were asked to estimate and compare other issues victims of DVA experienced before and during the COVID-19 lockdown and the rate which these had increased, decreased or stayed the same.

Table 2 captures a sense of the complex needs of those experiencing DVA in the early phases of lockdown and is consistent with findings from open survey questions; respondents expressed concern that these stress factors associated with DVA ( Table 2 ) were exacerbated by the ongoing COVID-19 restrictions.

Q7 Estimated additional issues associated with DVA during COVID-19.

In my experience DV is not occurring in more households but it got worse in the ones where it is already happening as people are on top of each other all the time and there is no break from it. (SW1095—Child Protection and Welfare)

COVID has at best complicated and at worst meant that more children are at risk of harm from domestic violence with only emergency services responding and seeing children. (SW1079—Child Protection and Welfare)

Not getting the full picture of what is happening or observing the home environment. (SW1112—Disability)

Respondents described being challenged to adapt these more intimate and in-depth meetings in the home to alternative spaces in line with public health guidelines. This was partly due to safe work practices and procedures during the pandemic, as well as fears surrounding catching the virus.

The restricted ability to be as responsive as possible, read body language and question, assess the situation effectively, assess safety when engaging in difficult conversations, offer supports and demonstrate empathy, develop a relationship and extend responsive support - has all been impacted by the inability to conduct face-to-face meetings. (SW1063—Mental Health)

Not knowing if women are fully safe to have conversations over the phone - of course one asks if this time is suitable but unclear if someone else is in the room, listening in on conversation. Fear that this will place woman at further risk. Leads to great difficulty in assessing if children are safe. (SW1015—Medical)

Would have benefited from guidelines/training on how to change practice to best support women in this situation when working remotely, as have lost so many opportunities to support better, to observe, to make a richer and more meaningful assessments. (SW1009—‘Other’)

Increased demand for services (e.g. mental health supports, GPs and Public Health Nurses) combined with reduced capacity as a result of COVID-19, created longer referral times and increased waiting lists. One respondent described services being diminished ‘to the point of near non-existence’ (SW1050—Child Protection and Welfare). Around 56.7 per cent of respondents ( n  = 68) reported the closure of GP surgeries and resource centres as a barrier to help-seeking during lockdown, often describing how they stepped in to fill the gap left by these services in the absence of an alternative solution.

DV has been seen as an issue during COVID but instead of services increasing they have decreased. Meeting with families who are experiencing DV is not an option but a must as it could save lives. In the early stages of COVID lockdown, SW were the only people getting in to see children and families and without the support of services such as Women’s Aid we are on our own trying to support these families. (SW1050—Child Protection and Welfare)

Many respondents considered school closures as ‘eradicating’ children’s support structures, leaving children and young people living with DVA isolated from supports and other protective factors. Practitioners explained that for children who were not known to be at risk, opportunities to disclose or confide in a safe person were severely reduced by the restrictions.

Additional isolation and risk noted depending on the history factors such as alcohol use, no transport, no family support etc. All of these contributing factors increase risk for both adults and children. (SW1112—Disability)

COVID has made me re-evaluate what abuse is and how it manifests in homes. It can masquerade as assistance. (SW1083—Mental Health)

The challenges faced by respondents highlighted a recognition that technology may not always be a safe medium to engage with victims of DVA. One respondent described observing ‘tone and flow of speech’ combined with staying alert for subtle cues or changes from one interaction to the next to capture any nuances. Around 90.5 per cent ( n  = 105) of respondents reported increased use of the telephone for engagement compared to pre-COVID-19 which for some helped to compensate for changes to conventional patterns of engagement. This contact included both social workers making contact more often and making themselves more accessible by providing mobile contact details or using messaging services such as WhatsApp or text.

Open survey responses provided examples of how service delivery was adapted during lockdown. Practitioners described linking-in with clients in imaginative ways which allowed for safe face-to-face meetings to take place, including meeting at the supermarket, in doorways, parks or private gardens. This flexibility and creativity in accommodating clients communicated an understanding of the difficulties that restrictions and changed family dynamics placed on victims’ access to safe spaces. In certain practice settings, COVID-19 restrictions were capitalised on when ‘no visitors rule’ in hospitals allowed medical and maternity social work to have more open and candid discussions with patients around safety and risk. In Q9 respondents indicated their increased use of alternative communication mediums for engagement, such as WhatsApp, Zoom or Microsoft Teams (see Supplementary Data for full data). This would suggest that workers and services stepped up to provide options to facilitate continuity of contact.

Captured in open survey responses were examples of inter-agency working between police and social work. Police (An Garda Siochana) were mentioned as being central to both changes to practice and to new approaches. Respondents explained that their clients had been informed to contact the police if they required assistance to flee an unsafe situation or needed refuge, with officers seen to be available to carry out welfare and home-checks on vulnerable people. Help-seeking behaviour by victims of DVA, which involved police were reported by 61.5 per cent of practitioners surveyed ( n  = 64) to have ‘increased’. This finding was mirrored in the qualitative responses where it was conveyed by some respondents that there was a general sense of enhanced police presence during this time. It was conveyed in the data that police officers stepped in to bridge the gaps in accessing routes to safety created by the restrictions.

External initiatives which were not under the remit of social workers such as, community organisations who delivered food or support packages to people, became an additional resource to practice by providing welfare checks and support when social workers could not. Finally, whilst many respondents described changes to their practice during lockdown, several social workers highlighted in their free-text comments that they felt they had not used any innovative or new ways of working during this period.

Echoing the international literature regarding increased prevalence rates of DVA during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Kourti et al. , 2021 ; Piquero et al. , 2021 ), this study of social work practice in Ireland also highlighted perceived increased rates of DVA on caseloads, with particular concerns for coercive control and emotional abuse, James-Hanman’s (2018) assertion that abusive and coercively controlling men essentially make their partners and children’s worlds smaller, was also born out in this present study, with perpetrator actions limiting and controlling victim interactions, relationships, thoughts and liberties. Compounding this and as an unintended consequence, the findings further echo both Bergman et al. ’s (2021) observation that COVID-19 restrictions have been employed usefully by abusers, and Carrington et al. ’s (2020) concern that perpetrators were ‘weaponising’ restrictions to maximise opportunities for control providing an incubator-type context for coercive control to thrive. Across practice settings social workers observed the intensified nature and extent of DVA on caseloads leaving some families in a more vulnerable position when DVA intersected with other issues including mental health and disability.

Evident across the findings, however, was an acute and increased awareness and sensitivity towards DVA and coercive control as result of the COVID-19 restrictions. Perhaps influenced by powerful awareness raising campaigns sending a clear message to victims that help was at hand ( Holt et al. , 2021 ), participants reflected on social work practice during COVID-19 resulting in deeper and more nuanced and empathetic understandings of DVA. Related to these new understandings, the findings highlight radical changes to traditional modalities of practice and engagement with families, involving innovative and creative interventions. Remote working and the pivot to online were reported to present significant challenges to practitioners who could not ‘work’ the house ( Ferguson, 2018 ) or safely conduct risk assessments. Achieving a therapeutic alliance with families through the well-worn methodology of relationship-based practice was reported as challenging to achieve in the absence of that deeply embodied practice of home-visiting ( Ferguson, 2018 ). Echoing Harrikari et al. ’s (2021 , p. 1660) conclusion that social work practice in Finland, was ‘completely unprepared’ for the working conditions provoked by the pandemic, the findings of this study also concur with those of Cortis et al. ,(2021) where practitioners reported making the pivot to online out of necessity, not choice, with limited training or expert support and with significant concerns about safe practice. Radical and complex changes in work practice combined with decreased availability of allied services and increased visibility of DVA on social work caseloads, left practitioners in this study feeling like they were on their own trying to support vulnerable families. This further chimes with Pfitzner et al. ’s (2022) assertion for urgent attention to practitioner well-being under siege from increased complexity and demand.

Notwithstanding these very real challenges, COVID-19 restrictions also clearly created opportunities for changes to service provision across a whole range of health and social care professionals. Whilst not specifically focused on social work practice, Holt et al. ’s (2021) review of policy and practice responses to DVA during COVID-19 highlighted a number of initiatives assessed as ‘promising’ for future crises that could be integrated as part of improvements to service delivery going forward. This is important to acknowledge particularly given the evidenced correlation between health crises or natural disasters, and the consequences of these disasters, including DVA ( Kourti et al. , 2021 ; Piquero et al. , 2021 ).

Reporting on a unique yet challenging period in Irish social work practice, this article captures both the complex and distinct features of practice which was adapting, evolving and responding in the context of both uncertainty and risk and enhanced understanding. Highlighting both the changes and challenges in work practices that limit social work assessment and quality contact with families, as well as emerging innovative practice responses with enhanced use of technology, the implications for practice include an increased awareness of the risk and prevalence of DVA as accelerated by the pandemic. A clear message emerging from this study is the critical need for social work assessment and intervention with families experiencing DVA to remain adaptive to the ever-changing COVID-19 context and continue to develop innovative practice approaches that aim to meet the needs of those most at risk. Whilst services and practitioners responded to the need to incorporate technology much more robustly into their daily practice, it is as yet unknown how sustainable these changes are in the absence of training, evaluation and support.

Closing comment

A limitation of this study is the relatively low response rate of 9.2 per cent ( n  = 120) of the total membership of the IASW ( n  = 1,300); survey fatigue, which was reported elsewhere ( Stanley et al. , 2021 ), may have contributed to the low response rate, in addition to the increased stress that front line workers were experiencing at work during this time. It is also imperative to highlight that the statistics presented in this study are measurements of practitioners’ perceptions, or estimates, of DVA and related issues on their caseloads. Lastly, it is important to emphasise that this study does not claim to provide generalisable data. Rather, this study presents the views of the practitioners who responded to the questionnaire. Nevertheless, as this is an under-studied population who were responding to DVA on the front line during the pandemic, their perceptions and experiences are crucial to understanding social work practice with families experiencing DVA in during the first waves of COVID-19 in Ireland.

The authors wish to thank the Irish Association of Social Workers for their support and assistance with this research.

This work was funded by the Arts and Social Sciences Benefactions Fund, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.

Conflict of interest statement . None declared.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material is available at British Journal of Social Work Journal online.

An Garda Síochána ( 2020 ) An Garda Síochána – Here to Support Victims of Domestic Abuse , Office of Corporate Communications , Press Release, January 2021.

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Banks S. , Cai T. , de Jonge E. , Shears J. , Shum M. , Sobocan A. M. , Strom K. , Truell R. , Jesus Uriz M. , Weinberg M. ( 2020 ) ‘Practising ethically during COVID-19: Social work challenges and responses ’, International Social Work , 6 (5), pp. 569–83. Oxford University Press

Bayles M. ( 2012 ) ‘ Is physical proximity essential to the psychoanalytic process? An exploration through the lens of Skype ’, Psychoanalytic Dialogues , 22 ( 5 ), pp. 569 – 85 .

Bergman S. , Bjørnholt M. , Helseth H. ( 2021 ) ‘ Norwegian shelters for victims of domestic violence in the COVID-19 pandemic – Navigating the new normal ’, Journal of Family Violence , 1 – 11 .

Bracewell K. , Hargreaves P. , Stanley N. ( 2020 ) ‘ The consequences of the COVID-19 lockdown on stalking victimisation ’, Journal of Family Violence , 1 – 7 .

Bradbury-Jones C. , Isham L. ( 2020 ) ‘ The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence ’, Journal of Clinical Nursing , 29 ( 13–14 ), pp. 2047 – 49 .

Braun V. , Clarke V. ( 2006 ) ‘ Using thematic analysis in psychology ’,   Qualitative Research in Psychology ,   3 ( 2 ), pp. 77 – 101 .

Byrne J. , Kirwan G. ( 2019 ) ‘ Relationship-based social work and electronic communication technologies: Anticipation, adaptation and achievement ’, Journal of Social Work Practice , 33 ( 2 ), pp. 217 – 32 .

Carrington K. , Morley C. , Warren S. , Harris B. , Vitis L. , Ball M. , Clarke J. , Ryan V. ( 2020 ) The Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Domestic and Family Violence Services, Australia , QUT Centre for Justice .

Chen J. , Chung W. , Young S. , Tuttle M. , Collins M. , Darghouth S. , Longley R. , Levy R. , Razafsha M. , Kerner J. , Wozniak J. , Huffman J. ( 2020 ) ‘ COVID-19 and telepsychiatry: Early outpatient experiences and implications for the future ’, General Hospital Psychiatry , 66 , pp. 89 – 95 .

Chun-Sing Cheung J. ( 2021 ) ‘ Responses to COVID-19 in major social work journals: A systematic review of empirical studies ’, Comments and Editorials’ Research on Social Work Practice , 1 – 18 .

Cook L. L. , Zschomler D. ( 2020 ) Child and Family Social Work in the Context of COVID-19: Practice Issues and Innovations , Norwich , CRCF .

Cortis N. , Smyth C. , Valentine K. , Breckenridge J. , Cullen P. ( 2021 ) ‘ Adapting service delivery during COVID-19: Experiences of domestic violence practitioners ’, British Journal of Social Work , 51 ( 5 ), pp. 1779 – 98 .

Creswell J. W. , Plano Clark V. L. ( 2007 ) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research , Thousand Oaks, CA , Sage .

Donagh B. ( 2020 ) ‘ From unnoticed to invisible: The impact of Covid-19 on children & young people experiencing domestic violence and abuse ’, Child Abuse Review , 29 ( 4 ), pp. 387 – 91 .

Ferguson H. ( 2018 ) ‘ Making home visits: Creativity and the embodied practices of home visiting in social work and child protection ’, Qualitative Social Work: Research and Practice , 17 ( 1 ), pp. 65 – 80 .

Goodman L. A. , Epstein D. ( 2020 ) ‘ Loneliness and the CoViD-19 pandemic: Implications for intimate partner violence ’, Journal of Family Violence , 1 – 8 .

Griffith A. K. ( 2020 ) ‘ Parental burnout and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic ’, Journal of Family Violence , 1 – 7 .

Harrikari T. , Romakkaniemi M. , Tiitinen L. , Ovaskainen S. ( 2021 ) ‘ Pandemic and social work: Exploring Finnish social workers’ experiences through a SWOT analysis ’, The British Journal of Social Work , 51 ( 5 ), pp. 1644 – 62 .

Holt S. , Butler É. , Gregory S. , Elliffe R. ( 2021 )   DAHLIA-19 Mapping in-Country Report. Country: Ireland , TCD Dublin , DAHLIA-19 .

Jacob H. ( 2020 ) ‘ Safeguarding children in a pandemic: Pandemonium with possibility? ’, Child Abuse Review , 29 ( 5 ), pp. 493 – 96 .

James-Hanman D. ( 2018 ) ‘Coercive control – rebooting the domestic violence revolution’, Safe Ireland Event to mark the Domestic Violence Act 2018. Dublin, Ireland, 12 July 2018, available online at: https://www.safeireland.ie/wp-content/uploads/Safe-Ireland-Event-Davina-James-Hanman-Speech.pdf (accessed December 1, 2021).

Kelly L. ( 2003 ) ‘ The wrong debate: Reflections on why force is not the key issue with respect to trafficking in women for sexual exploitation ’, Feminist Review , 73 ( 1 ), pp. 139 – 44 .

Kourti A. , Stavridou A. , Panagouli E. , Psaltopoulou T. , Spiliopoulou C. , Tsolia M. , Sergentanis T. N. , Tsitsika A. ( 2021 ) ‘ Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review ’, Trauma, Violence & Abuse , 1 – 27 .

Lyons M. , Brewer G. ( 2021 ) ‘ Experiences of intimate partner violence during lockdown and the COVID-19 pandemic ’, Journa l of Family Violence , 1 – 9 . https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10896-021-00260-x.pdf (accessed September 9, 2021).

McKibbin G. , Humphreys C. , Gallois E. , Robinson M. , Sijnja J. , Yeung J. , Goodbourne R. ( 2021 ) ‘Never Waste a Crisis’: Domestic and Family Violence Policy and Practice Initiatives in Response to COVID-19 , University of Melbourne, Australia, Anrows & Believe.

Mishna F. , Sanders J. E. , Daciuk J. , Milne E. , Fanyus S. , Bogo M. , Fang L. , Greenblatt A. , Rosen P. , Khoury-Kassabri M. , Lefevre M. ( 2022 ) ‘ #socialwork: An international study examining social workers’ use of information and communication technology ’, British Journal of Social Work , 52 (2), pp. 850–71.

Overlien C. ( 2020 ) ‘ The COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on children in domestic violence refuges ’, Child Abuse Review , doi: 10.1002/car.2650, Advance Access published August 18, 2020. 

Pfitzner N. , Fitz-Gibbon K. , Meyer S. ( 2022 ) ‘ Responding to women experiencing domestic and family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring experiences and impacts of remote service delivery in Australia ’, Child & Family Social Work , 27 ( 1 ), pp. 30 – 40 .

Piquero A. R. , Jennings W. G. , Jemison E. , Kaukinen C. , Knaul F. M. ( 2021 ) ‘ Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic - Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis ’, Journal of Criminal Justice , 74 , pp. 101806 – 810 .

Posick C. , Schueths A. A. , Christian C. , Grubb J. A. , Christian S. E. ( 2020 ) ‘ Child victim services in the time of COVID-19: New challenges and innovative solutions ’, American Journal of Criminal Justice , 45 ( 4 ), pp. 680 – 89 .

Reeves N. ( 2015 ) ‘The use of telephone and Skype in psychotherapy: Reflections of an attachment therapist’, in Cundy L. (ed.), Love in the Age of the Internet: Attachment in the Digital Era , London , Karnac .

Roberts W. ( 2020 ) ‘ Reflections on practice during a pandemic: How do we continue to ensure effective communication during the COVID-19 pandemic? ’, Child Abuse Review , 29 ( 6 ), pp. 584 – 88 .

Ruch G. , Turney D. , Ward A. ( 2010 ) Relationship-Based Social Work: Getting to the Heart of Practice , London , Jessica Kingsley Publishers .

Safe Ireland ( 2020 ) Tracking the Shadow Pandemic: A Report on Women and Children Seeking Support from Domestic Violence Services during the First 6 Months of Covid-19 , Dublin, Safe Ireland.

Self-Brown S. , Reuben K. , Perry E. W. , Bullinger L. R. , Osborne M. C. , Bielecki J. , Whitaker D. ( 2022 ) ‘ The impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of an evidence-based child maltreatment prevention program: Understanding the perspectives of SafeCare ® providers ’, Journal of Family Violence , 37 , pp. 825 – 35 .

Sharma A. , Bikash Borah S. ( 2022 ) ‘ Covid-19 and domestic violence: An indirect path to social and economic crisis ’, Journal of Family Violence , 37 ( 5 ), pp. 759 – 57 .

Stanley N. , Barter C. , Farrelly N. , Houghton C. , McCabe L. , Meinck F. , Richardson Foster H. , Shorrock S. ( 2021 ) Innovation, Collaboration and Adaptation: The UK Response to Domestic Abuse under Covid-19 , University of Central Lancashire & The University of Edinburgh .

Stark E. ( 2013 ) ‘ The dangers of dangerousness assessment ’, Family & Intimate Partner Violence Quarterly , 6 ( 2 ), pp. 13 – 22 .

Teddlie C. , Tashakkori A. ( 2009 ) Foundations of Mixed Methods Research: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches in the Social and Behavioral Sciences , London , Sage .

Truell R. ( 2020 )  ‘ News from our societies – IFSW: COVID-19: The struggle, success and expansion of social work – Reflections on the profession’s global response, 5 months on ’,   International Social Work ,   63 ( 4 ), pp. 545 – 48 .

Women’s Aid ( 2020 ) Annual Impact Report 2020 , Dublin, Women’s Aid.

Wood L. , Baumler E. , Voth Schrag R. , Guillot-Wright S. , Hairston D. , Temple J. , Torres E. ( 2020 ) ‘“ Don’t know where to go for help”: Safety and economic needs among violence survivors during the COVID-19 pandemic ’, Journal of Family Violence , 1 – 9 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 1468-263X
• Print ISSN 0045-3102
• Copyright © 2024 British Association of Social Workers
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Domestic Violence in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Synthesis of Systematic Reviews

1 Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

Meghan Royle

Associated data.

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380231155530 for Domestic Violence in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Synthesis of Systematic Reviews by Bitna Kim and Meghan Royle in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

The current systematic meta-review aimed to map out, characterize, analyze, and synthesize the overarching findings of systematic reviews on domestic violence (DV) in the context of COVID-19. Specifically, a systematic meta-review was conducted with three main objectives: (1) to identify what types and aspects of DV during COVID-19 have been reviewed systematically to date (research trends), (2) to synthesize the findings from recent systematic reviews of the theoretical and empirical literature (main findings), and (3) to discuss what systematic reviewers have proposed about implications for policy and practice as well as for future primary research (implications). We identified, appraised, and synthesized the evidence contained in systematic reviews by means of a so-called systematic meta-review. In all, 15 systematic reviews were found to be eligible for inclusion in the current review. Thematic codes were applied to each finding or implication in accordance with a set of predetermined categories informed by the DV literature. The findings of this review provide clear insight into current knowledge of prevalence, incidence, and contributing factors, which could help to develop evidence-informed DV prevention and intervention strategies during COVID-19 and future extreme events. This systematic meta-review does offer a first comprehensive overview of the research landscape on this subject. It allows scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to recognize initial patterns in DV during COVID-19, identify overlooked areas that need to be investigated and understood further, and adjust research methods that will lead to more robust studies.

Introduction

During the COVID-19 pandemic, domestic violence 1 (DV)— any form of physical, psychological, sexual, economic, or other violence and abuse occurring within the family or domestic setting, including violence against adults (partners, elders, adult children, or adult siblings) as well as minors (children and adolescents) ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Lausi et al., 2021 )—has become a significant issue worldwide, as movement restrictions and lockdown measures force DV victims to spend more time at home with their abusers ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). Survivors are already isolated to some extent, but quarantine and lockdown have further compounded their situation. This double isolation is characterized by the absence of formal or informal support networks, enabling perpetrators to act without scrutiny or repercussions ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). As Viero et al. (2021) describe, the stay-at-home (SAH) mantra becomes a paradox in the DV context ( Viero et al., 2021 ).

While DV has been a worldwide concern during the COVID-19 pandemic, studies of past epidemics and natural disasters that document their impacts on DV experience and reporting, as well as changes in the delivery of violence prevention and response services, show mixed results ( Piquero et al., 2021 ). Researchers found that the 2014 outbreak of Ebola in West and Central Africa and the 2017 outbreak of cholera in Yemen both led to elevated rates of DV, as well as disruptions in welfare structures, communities, and protection responses ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ). A growing body of research indicates, however, that pandemics and natural disasters reduce violent crime, boost family functioning, and enhance prosocial behavior within communities and families by preserving community trust or strengthening cooperation ( Cerna-Turoff et al., 2019 ).

In Cerna-Turoff et al. (2019) , the first known systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic of epidemics’ and natural disasters’ impacts on violent crime, the researchers investigated the magnitude and direction of the association between natural disasters and various forms of child abuse (CA) within the family or domestic context. They found no consistent association or directional influence between natural disasters and CA. As a result, they suggested that this finding challenges the assumption that DV escalates when epidemics and natural disasters strike. Cerna-Turoff et al. (2019) cautioned, however, that a concrete conclusion could not be reached due to the lack of studies on the subject.

Researchers across the globe have moved quickly to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between DV and COVID-19 and to identify emerging issues related to DV within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, as evidenced by an increasing body of primary research ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ). A systematic review approach has become increasingly common across the disciplines in researching DV associated with COVID-19, as the DV literature continues to grow at a rapid rate. To be able to respond to DV not only during the current COVID-19 pandemic, but also in future pandemics, systematic reviewers have synthesized international findings concerning issues surrounding DV about which researchers, practitioners, and policymakers must remain informed and ready to continue exploring ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Recently, the proliferation of systematic reviews on DV during the COVID-19 pandemic has made it challenging to keep up. It is arguably imperative to synthesize the overarching findings of systematic reviews on DV and aim to further advance both researchers’ and policymakers’ efforts to prevent DV during COVID-19 and future extreme events ( Marmor et al., 2021 ).

Current Research

Through the use of a systematic meta-review approach, we located systematic reviews of DV during the COVID-19 published across a range of disciplines, synthesized their findings, and identified DV-specific themes pertaining to policy, practice, and future research implications.

As such, the current systematic meta-review aimed to map out, characterize, and analyze all of the empirical evidence for DV within the context of COVID-19 ( Marmor et al., 2021 ). Specifically, three main objectives guided our systematic meta-review: (1) identifying which types and aspects of DV have been reviewed systematically during COVID-19 (research trends), (2) synthesizing the recent systematic review findings (main findings), and (3) contemplating the implications that systematic reviewers have proposed for policy and practice as well as future primary research (implications). Lastly, this study concluded with recommendations for future systematic reviews of DV during the pandemic based on its synthesis findings.

As the first systematic meta-review of DV in the context of COVID-19, the current review provides a comprehensive overview of the research landscape. The findings will enable scholars to recognize initial patterns in DV during COVID-19, identify areas that need further exploration and understanding, and adapt methods to develop more robust studies ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ). Furthermore, those who assess and intervene with potential DV offenders and victims may find the current systematic meta-review of great interest, as it may provide guidance for tailoring prevention/intervention strategies.

Inclusion Criteria

Only systematic reviews of DVs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic were eligible for inclusion. Specifically, to be included in the current “systematic meta-review” (i.e., a synthesis of systematic reviews), a systematic review had to meet the following criteria: (1) searched at least one database, in addition to reference checking, hand-searching, citation searching, or contacting primary research authors ( Gibson et al., 2011 ), (2) were published in a peer-reviewed journal using publication as a proxy for research quality ( Kim & Merlo, 2021 ; Pratt, 2010 ), and (3) reviewed the existing literature on DV in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. DV encompasses intimate partner violence (IPV), elder abuse, CA, and any form of violence within the family or domestic setting ( Abdo et al., 2020 ).

Search Strategy and Identified Studies

It is necessary to identify, appraise, and synthesize the evidence contained in systematic reviews by means of systematic meta-review ( Gibson et al., 2011 ; Kim & Merlo, 2021 ). A systematic meta-review approach brings several advantages, including exhaustive literature searches and the ability to synthesize large amounts of information ( Cervero & Gaines, 2015 ; Jaspers et al., 2011 ). Following the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines ( Moher et al., 2009 ), two researchers searched through a number of online databases in December 2021, and the search was subsequently updated in March 2022, August 2022, and November 2022. We sought to identify all systematic reviews of DV during the pandemic published in peer-reviewed journals that were available (either in print or in electronic form) that met the inclusion criteria for this review.

The specific electronic databases used were as follows: Criminal Justice Abstracts, Criminology: A Sage Full-Text Collection, Sociological Abstracts, PsychINFO, MEDLINE, Social Science Abstracts, Psychological & Behavioral Science Collection, Health and Safety Science Abstracts, and Current Contents. The following Boolean search strings were used: (“COVID-19” OR “SARS-CoV-19” OR “SARS-CoV-2” OR “2019-nCoV” OR “novel coronavirus” OR “coronavirus”) AND (“domestic violence” OR “domestic abuse” OR “family violence” OR “violence against women” OR “violence against children” “intimate partner violence” OR “abuse” OR “maltreatment” OR “vulnerability” OR “assault”) ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ).

Hand searches were conducted in two premier journals for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in violence: Trauma, Violence, & Abuse and Aggression and Violent Behaviors (2020–2022). The titles and abstracts of all studies published in Child Abuse and Neglect (2020–2022), where review studies are frequently published, were also reviewed. The search looked for any mention in the title, the abstract, or the keyword list of the words “systematic review” or “literature review” paired with any of the following terms: domestic violence, domestic abuse, child abuse, and family violence. In addition, the reference lists of those articles retrieved from each of the databases and journals were scanned to identify additional systematic review studies. As the last step, after obtaining the initial sample studies through online databases, reference lists, and journals, we checked Google Scholar using the authors’ names to locate studies by the active researchers cited ( Kim & Merlo, 2021 ).

We attempted to obtain copies of each likely candidate and the abstracts of likely references were reviewed to ensure that they used a systematic review approach. In the full-text review, each paper was evaluated according to the inclusionary criteria. As a result of these search strategies and inclusion criteria, 17 systematic reviews were found to be eligible for inclusion in the current review. Supplemental Appendix 1 depicts a PRISMA diagram of the study selection process.

Data Extraction and Coding

Two researchers independently extracted and coded information from each eligible study according to the review protocol. During coding, the primary focus was on identifying and coding study characteristics, main findings, and implications for policy and future research. To achieve this, we followed Wilson et al.’s (2019) meta-aggregation screening and coding procedure. Thematic codes were applied to each finding or implication in accordance with a set of predetermined categories informed by the DV literature. During the coding process, additional thematic codes were created and refined to better capture the underlying themes of a particular finding or implication. Cases of discrepancies in coding were moderated through consultation and agreement ( Kim & Merlo, 2021 ).

Research Trends: Characteristics of Eligible Systematic Reviews

Table 1 displays the study characteristics (i.e., authors’ disciplines, DV types, types of included studies, number of included studies, and national origins of included studies) as well as the main research questions of eligible systematic reviews. The systematic reviews were conducted in a variety of disciplines, including CCJ, gender studies, forensic and legal medicine, social work, education and health gynecology, psychology, psychiatry, medical science, education and humanities, child studies, and nursing. This result reflects that multiple disciplines recognize the seriousness of DV in the context of COVID-19 ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ).

Characteristics of Eligible Systematic Reviews ( N  = 17).

CM = child maltreatment; DV = domestic violence; IPV = intimate partner violence; VAC = violence against children; VAW = violence against women.

Table 1 lists and groups the systematic reviews according to DV type. Nine synthesized the existing research findings on IPV against women ( Bayu, 2020 ; Lausi et al., 2021 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Moreira & da Costa, 2020 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ), four covered CA ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ), and four covered DV against any member of the family (Javed & Mehmood, 2002; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Su et al., 2021 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). The literature reviewed consists primarily of journal articles, but six systematic reviews ( Bayu, 2020 ; Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ) also included narrative reviews, case studies, forum reports, working papers, commentaries, and letters to editors, which added interesting new insights. In systematic reviews, the number of included studies varied widely, from 3 ( Abdo et al., 2020 ) to 80 ( Bayu, 2020 ). The geographic areas covered by the systematic reviews were varied. Aside from Abdo et al. (2020) , which examined only US-based studies, the remaining 13 reviewed primary studies from multiple countries.

The four main research questions were addressed in systematic reviews, including prevalence and incidence ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Bayu, 2020 ; Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Lausi et al., 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ), contributing factors ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Moreira & da Costa, 2020 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ), mitigating policies and practices ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ), and emerging issues and patterns of DV studies ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ).

A synthesis of the main findings

Table 2 presents the main findings of each systematic review. The sequence of studies in Table 2 is identical to the one in Table 1 . That is, the studies in Table 2 are listed by DV type. This section presents the main findings according to the research questions and types of DV.

Main Findings.

CM = child maltreatment; DV = domestic violence; IPV = intimate partner violence; SAH = stay at home; VAW = violence against women.

Prevalence and incidence

Several reviews have been conducted to estimate the effect of COVID-19-related restrictions (i.e., SAH orders, lockdown orders) on reporting of DV incidents ( Bayu, 2020 ; Lausi et al., 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ). While several systematic reviews demonstrate that DV cases have increased in most countries during the current outbreak of COVID-19 ( McNeil et al., 2022 ), others suggest that DV has declined significantly over the same period ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ). It has become evident that DV rates differ significantly between data reported by victims and those reported by help professionals (i.e., police officers, anti-DV workers, and healthcare providers) in addition to country-specific variations ( Lausi et al., 2021 ).

IPV against women : As a result of COVID-19 and movement restrictions, many women were confined at home with their abusers while social protection services for them were disrupted, thereby increasing IPV risk ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ). Basically, systematic reviews have concluded that a “lockdown” at home policy to counter the pandemic has aggravated the problem of IPV against women, causing what the UN has referred to as a “pandemic on a pandemic” ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). Viero et al.’s (2021) systematic review, for example, discovered a massive increase in IPV-related calls as well as police reports in Argentina, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK, and the United States once restrictions were put in place to combat the outbreak. In addition, the systematic reviews provided information about specific circumstances associated with increasing IPV in the COVID-19 context. Globally, DV increased in the first week following the COVID-19 lockdown, according to Kourti et al. (2021) . Sánchez et al. (2020) also note that IPV against women has been increasing not only among low- and middle-income nations but also in high-income regions where social distancing measures are in place.

The COVID-19 lockdown has generally been acknowledged to be a substantial issue regarding IPV; however, some systematic reviewers have introduced primary studies that present a different picture ( Kourti et al., 2021 ). As an example, Viero et al. (2021) reported a dramatic decline in IPV victim requests for help during the lockdown. Nevertheless, Viero et al. (2021) , along with other systematic reviewers, caution that this result should not be interpreted as indicating a reduction in IPV cases since home confinement can limit victims’ access to help ( Kourti et al., 2021 ).

Among the systematic reviews in the current systematic meta-review studies, Piquero et al. (2021) precisely estimated the effect sizes of COVID-19-related restrictions on IPV incident reports by conducting a meta-analysis. The findings of this meta-analysis were based on police crime/incident reports, police calls for service, hotline registries, and health records before and after COVID-19 restrictions. An analysis of primary study results revealed that 29 studies reported an increase in IPV post-lockdowns, while eight studies reported a decrease. The meta-analysis results showed that SAH/lockdown orders caused a 7.86% increase in IPV incidents, and the effects increased, even more, when only US studies were considered, showing that 8.10% more incidents occurred.

For assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on IPV, Lausi et al. (2021) synthesized the results of studies comparing IPV rates before and after the SAH policies were implemented. Importantly, they divided IPV studies into categories based on data sources and compared data from victims (e.g., data collected from anonymous online surveys) with those from help professionals (e.g., help lines, healthcare system, or police system). It was found that IPV rates differed substantially between data sources and between countries. Studies with victim data showed an increase in IPV during SAH policies, particularly verbal, emotional, and psychological violence. Physical assault episodes decreased, but their severity worsened. Among the findings of this study, most female IPV victims reported that they did not seek help or report that abuse to authorities during the SAH period.

In contrast to studies with victim surveys, based on data from help professionals, the number of victims contacting hospitals and calling helplines during the pandemic appeared to be lower than in previous years. Lausi et al. (2021) included five studies using data collected from police reports. Mixed results were found in these studies. IPV increased by 8.1% during the pandemic period compared to the same period in previous years, according to a UK study. Specifically, IPV calls from third parties (e.g., neighbors) and high-density areas increased. In contrast, both US and Australian studies found no significant differences in IPV over the SAH period. Finally, Mexico City’s Attorney General’s office reported a significant decrease in IPV. In an explanation of these mixed responses, Lausi et al. (2021) claimed both increases and decreases were due to the increased IPV (e.g., fewer police calls due to increased stalking and control by abusers).

CA : The prevalence and incidence of CA within the family or domestic context have been examined in several systematic reviews ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ). Compared to IPV against women, the number of police and social service reports of CA declined significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Kourti et al. (2021) , decreased rates during the COVID-19 pandemic were more likely due to the limited detection opportunities associated with the closure of schools and other educational resources, not by a decrease in incidence. Furthermore, a lack of willingness to visit hospitals for issues not related to COVID-19 led to professionals having less ability to keep an eye on children for signs of abuse, resulting in CA being underreported during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Rapp et al., 2021 ).

In examining the rate of CA during COVID-19, several systematic reviews have found mixed results, depending on the data collection method ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 : Rapp et al., 2021 ). Specifically, studies using police reports and official referrals to child protective services showed an overall decrease in CA, but the reviewed articles using other data collection methods, such as hospital reports, surveys, and calls to helplines, showed a significant increase ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ). The expert opinion articles also indicate an increase in CA and neglect cases ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ). Among the reasons for the discrepancy between expert opinion articles and the actual published data, Abdo et al. (2020) noted that high demand for expert evaluation and follow-up occurred during COVID-19, leading to CA case numbers being overestimated, whereas COVID-19 may not have affected those who were chronically exposed to highly stressful environments and adverse economic conditions.

Contributing factors

In view of the fact that the review studies identified too many factors contributing to increased vulnerability to DV during the pandemic and the social distancing measures, the current systematic meta-review classified the factors based on an ecological framework, one of the most widely used theoretical models in DV research ( Kim, 2021 ). This classification strategy provides a better understanding of DV dynamics on different ecological system levels ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Based on an ecological model of DV, we analyze it at four levels, namely ontogenetic (i.e., the individual’s development history), microsystem (i.e., the family unit), exosystem (i.e., the formal and informal social structures), and macrosystem (i.e., societal and cultural values and beliefs), and assumes that each of these domains contributes to risk and protective markers ( Kim & Merlo, 2021 ).

Ontogenetic (individuals)

IPV against women—Victimization : Five systematic reviews delineated the sociodemographic characteristics and psychopathological vulnerabilities of female IPV victims ( Bayu, 2020 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). There is mounting evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic caused economic instability and worsened gender, sexual orientation, disability, race, and ethnicity inequalities ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). According to Viero et al. (2021) , women are particularly vulnerable to IPV and have been economically dependent on abusive partners in the wake of the pandemic. As a result of the pandemic, there has been an increase in job losses and unemployment, especially among migrants, women of color, and those with little or no education. Mental health issues and other psychological states, such as stress, anxiety, and depression, were also frequently identified as contributing to female IPV victimization ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). Besides identifying individual contributing factors, systematic reviewers detailed the mechanisms of female IPV victimizations. The COVID-19 pandemic, coupled with measures to restrict contact and movement, can lead to economic and social stresses, which result in alcohol and substance abuse, exacerbating psychopathological conditions that contribute to perpetrators engaging in IPV against women ( Bayu, 2020 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ).

IPV against women—Perpetration : In three systematic reviews, IPV perpetrators’ personal characteristics were examined ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). Women were at greater risk of becoming IPV victims, whereas men were more frequently reported as perpetrators ( Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). Aside from the stress of confinement and financial uncertainty, which were also identified as factors contributing to female IPV victimization, gender role attitudes, control desires, and aggressive and controlling behaviors have all been linked to increased IPV perpetration by male partners ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ).

CA—Perpetration : As a result of SAH orders and limited access to teachers, who are mandated reporters, children have been particularly vulnerable during the COVID-19 pandemic. Syibulhuda and Ediati’s (2021) systematic review is unique in that it compares risk factors for CA perpetration before and during the pandemic. CA perpetration is still related to socioeconomic conditions and mental health, and this has been the case both prior to and during the pandemic, according to the review results. Childhood experience, however, had only been identified as a risk factor for CA perpetration before the pandemic ( Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). In another systematic review, Rapp et al. (2021) found that CA perpetration is associated with increased parental stress.

Microsystem (family and relationships)

IPV against women : A systematic review found that forced lockdowns and work-from-home policies affect the dynamics in families, particularly those with middle and low socioeconomic status ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). Families that live in crowded homes and have decreased income are at the greatest risk of stress, anger, frustration, and conflicts within the families ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; McNeil et al., 2022 ). Apart from these tense family situations, dependence on partners, increased controlling behavior, a lack of assertive communication, and fatigue also contribute to the high rates of IPV against women during a pandemic. In addition, IPV victims are struggling to implement security plans due to the fear of contagion and a lack of social contacts and support around them ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ).

CA : In a systematic review by Bayu (2020) , the only one to examine the factors contributing to CA at the microsystem level, staying with an abusive parent during the COVID-19 emergency was found to contribute significantly to the rise in CA. Bayu (2020) further highlighted that children are victims of DV as well if they witness it being perpetrated against an adult in the home.

Exosystem (community)

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many DV shelters closed or were converted into health centers ( Bayu, 2020 ). The abusers exploit victims’ inability to ask for help or escape due to this community factor, namely a lack of services and support organizations for DV victims and difficulty in accessing these services, which contributes to high DV rates ( Bayu, 2020 ; Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). Another exosystem-level risk factor is the lack of mental health services since DV victims exposed to their abusers more often during the pandemic require increased mental health services ( Su et al., 2021 ). In a pandemic, it is crucial not only to increase the number of community services available to DV victims, but also to improve the quality of services. Poor performance in the health sector, including the lack of training given to health professionals in screening and identifying DV cases and a high priority placed on care associated with COVID-19 at the expense of DV intervention, contributed to the high incidence of DV during the pandemic ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Living in remote rural areas, as well as facing restrictions on activities or difficulty accessing normal community activities, can further isolate a person and make it harder to seek help, leading to higher DV rates ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ).

Macrosystem (culture/laws)

Macrosystem-level risk factors for DV during a pandemic have only been examined in a small number of primary studies. However, systematic reviews have repeatedly stressed their importance as major causes and triggers of DV ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). During a pandemic, a lack of firm policies related to DV matters contributes to a high rate of IPV against women during that pandemic ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). The economy at the national level, however, does not influence DV levels during a pandemic. IPV against women was evident both in economically fragile regions and in economically affluent ones, according to Kourti et al.’s (2021) systematic review. It is important to have social welfare and other policies at the macrosystem level to cushion the negative impacts of the economic crisis caused by COVID-19 ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ).

Mitigating policies and practices

Four systematic reviews identified and synthesized the specific multidisciplinary interventions and strategies needed to address DV within the context of COVID-19 ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ). These practical and timely solutions primarily focus on reducing victims’ exposure to abusers and improving their access to services. The two types of platforms available are face-to-face and virtual ad-hoc help-seeking solutions ( Su et al., 2021 ).

Face-to-face help-seeking solutions

In systematic reviews, two main results were presented regarding face-to-face help-seeking programs undertaken during the COVID-19 period when access to help was restricted ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ). First, results indicated that European countries and Canada have more successfully and actively implemented initiatives for communicating the code word (either verbally or in writing) for abused women who cannot access virtual channels ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). For example, in France, Germany, Italy, Norway, the Netherlands, and Spain, there is a specific code called “Mask 19,” which enables abused women to initiate help-seeking activities. In the UK, “ANI” (which stands for “Action Needed”) allows domestic abuse victims to seek immediate assistance at participating pharmacies, while in France, “Safe Word” emergency alert systems, and in Canada, “The Signal for Help” hand gesture, have been implemented ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ). Also, in the UK, there is a “silent solution” where DV victims can call an emergency line (999), tap their fingers on the phone or cough as an alternative to speaking, and if prompted, can press 55 on the phone to specify an emergency ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ).

Another finding is that community sectors and public places play a crucial role in facilitating help-seeking for women who cannot access virtual resources ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). In France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Norway, and Argentina, pharmacies and grocery stores have been used to provide essential services, like using confidentiality codes and distributing informative handouts ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Postal workers and delivery drivers in the UK have also been asked by the police to watch out for signs of abuse and to notify police and social services on behalf of DV victims ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ).

Virtual help-seeking solutions

Many countries, especially high-income countries such as Norway, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Argentina, have promoted virtual help-seeking services to reduce the time and effort DV victims spend seeking help ( Su et al., 2021 ). In particular, DV victim centers have benefited from ad-hoc online help-seeking platforms, which have provided DV victims with a comprehensive set of health and safety resources without the need to search for another website ( Su et al., 2021 ). Shelters, victim support centers, helplines, and police departments have also used virtual channels, such as websites and messaging applications, to maintain contact with DV victims and provide support resources. This has minimized the risk of exposure to COVID-19 and ensured the victim’s privacy and security ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ).

Studies on DV: Emerging issues

In systematic reviews of studies on DV during the COVID-19 pandemic, systematic reviewers have explored and discussed emerging issues ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). Three major issues were identified in the current study. Studies of DV often discuss factors contributing to an increase in DV incidence that are specific to COVID-19 ( Nasution & Fitriana, 2020 ). Several factors have consistently been identified as contributing to the surge in DV over the years ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ). The roles of COVID-19, however, were interpreted inconsistently. According to Pentaraki and Speake’s (2020) literature analysis, COVID-19 can be viewed as a context that exposes and exacerbates preexisting inequalities or as a cause of DV. Specifically, some researchers have suggested that COVID-19 conditions are merely factors that aggravate or trigger DV instead of causing DV ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). Others, however, argue that DV aggression results from frustration and agitation generated by the COVID-19 context ( Mazza et al., 2020 ). Pentaraki and Speake (2020) warn that this approach risks scapegoating COVID-19 as a cause of DV.

There is also an emerging concern about how useful online support measures have been during the pandemic among DV victims. A systematic review by Pentaraki and Speake (2020) found several articles concluding that providing online support is not appropriate and effective in cases of DV during lockdowns, despite this technique’s popularity. Two reasons lead to this conclusion. On the one hand, the provision of online support can pose risks to DV victims, since the perpetrator may be monitoring online communication channels. In addition, victims may be confined to small spaces and spend more time with the perpetrator, making it difficult to communicate safely and confidentially with virtual support services ( Campbell, 2020 ). It is also unlikely that all women have access to stable internet or can afford communication or broadband technology in some regions of the world due to extreme poverty ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ; Ragavan et al., 2020 ).

The third emerging issue relates to the scope and methodology of DV studies on COVID-19. According to systematic reviews, DV definitions vary greatly between studies, resulting in virtually no generalizable results ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ). Physical and psychological violence are the subjects of most DV studies surrounding COVID-19, and sexual violence and verbal abuse are understudied ( Kourti et al., 2021 ). Furthermore, in light of the study methodologies, DV studies were found to be inconsistent in their study designs and have often relied on administrative data, such as helpline reports. Police reports, surveys, and big data are less commonly used ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). Research results regarding changes in DV rates during COVID-19 vary according to the method used to collect data ( Lausi et al., 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ). In general, researchers have faced difficulty conducting rigorous studies on the trends in DV incidence during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Viero et al., 2021 ).

A Synthesis of Policy and Practice Implications

We reviewed the policy and practice implications in the included systematic reviews and identified six recurring themes, including basic and extensive-intensive services, digital equality and alternative avenues to online, intersectional approaches, training and education, multidisciplinary approaches, and collaborations. This section discusses the implications based on these themes.

Both Basic and Extensive-Intensive Services

In addition to operating specialized centers and volunteer initiatives, systematic reviewers have noted the importance of maintaining and providing basic services for DV victims in their community ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). At a time when women and children needed DV services more than ever during COVID-19, evidence suggests that basic services decreased and were disrupted as resources were diverted to deal with the pandemic ( Bayu, 2020 ). Because of the pandemic’s long-term impact, basic support services and programs must be maintained, expanded, and diversified to prevent DV, ensure the continuity of quality care, identify DV signs, and provide support to DV victims in the event of a pandemic ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Among these services are helplines and child protection services ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ). As a way to resolve barriers to help-seeking during the pandemic, such as inadequate information about community-based DV services and concerns about contracting the virus at service points, several authors recommended routine screening for DV during remote primary care consultations ( Bayu, 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ).

The systematic reviewers also called for more comprehensive and intensive services. For screening, identifying, and addressing DV cases throughout and after the COVID-19 pandemic, intensive law enforcement, social services, victim advocacy follow-up, and transitional housing options are vital ( Piquero et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Basic as well as extensive-intensive services to DV victims cannot be provided without the government dedicating resources to service providers ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ).

Digital Equality

Since DV facilities have been closed in response to social isolation and regulations of COVID-19, efforts have been made to create and implement online interventions and web-based services to reach out to those women and children at the greatest risk of DV ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). A few examples are developing apps, expanding remote victim services, and implementing abuse screenings and safety planning through telehealth ( Piquero et al., 2021 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). In fact, a growing body of evidence suggests that technology-based online interventions may benefit DV victims and may result in better outcomes than traditional in-person interventions ( Su et al., 2021 ). Rural areas and poor countries, however, do not have high-speed internet access and DV victims cannot afford technology for communication and broadband. In this context, researchers emphasized the importance of designing and developing online systems that are accessible via low-tech devices ( Su et al., 2021 ). More importantly, the digital divide should be addressed with greater digital equality , along with free or low-cost technology, in an era of rapid advancements in online interventions and web-based services for DV victims during the pandemic, to ensure that no one is left behind ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ).

Community Development

Special attention needs to be paid to DV victims or those at risk with no private space and who are confined with perpetrators because of lockdown measures. For them, seeking online assistance is difficult, and remote support is unsafe ( Bayu, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). There should be alternatives to technology-based online interventions available to this group. Systematic reviewers highlighted the value of community development work and the need to mobilize all sectors of the community to address DV during pandemics ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). As a good example, the use of specific colors or codes to activate the help-seeking process in the community through pharmacies and supermarket chains has been implemented in European countries and Canada during COVID-19 ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Su et al., 2021 ). As part of their intriguing proposal, Su et al. (2021) suggested repurposing hotels for shelter homes during a pandemic. By integrating hotels into a coordinated community response to DV, the massive negative impact of COVID-19 on tourism could be effectively managed. In addition, Su et al. (2021) stressed the importance of places in the community where victims can pack an escape bag or pick up resources, tips, and supplies discreetly if they wish to escape their abusers during a lockdown.

An Intersectional Approach to Marginalized Groups

Both evidence and history support the conclusion that pandemics exacerbate gender and intersectional inequalities, and marginalized groups face additional challenges ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). In addition, people with mental illness or chronic health conditions, immigrants or refugees, and those living in remote rural areas are some of the groups who are disproportionately isolated during the pandemic ( Piquero et al., 2021 ). It is crucial to understand how a pandemic affects marginalized groups and create policies, plans, and responses that are effective, sensitive, responsive, and equitable ( Bayu, 2020 ). During the COVID-19 pandemic, emergency measures often fail to consider the different needs of marginalized groups ( Bayu, 2020 ).

Systematic reviewers have urged policy responses and resources to address DV, taking into consideration the intersection of families and children’s social identities ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). Other than culturally adapted screening instruments ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ), DV services based on an intersectional approach for marginalized groups have also been proposed ( Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). As an example, Pentaraki and Speake (2020) recommended that governments exclude DV victims from restrictions on movement during lockdowns. Moreover, Pentaraki and Speake (2020) underlined the importance of implementing public policies for DV prevention, protection, investigation, and punishment in remote rural areas.

Training, Education, and Campaign for Health Professionals, Teachers, and the Public

Health professionals have played a crucial role in identifying and managing DV cases during the pandemic. Accordingly, several authors have highlighted the importance of training and education for health professionals, particularly psychiatrists, radiologists, dentists, and maxillofacial surgery teams ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). A key component of health professional training and education is information about early signs of abuse, technical knowledge, and remote primary care consultations ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). Cappa and Jijon (2021) also suggested that teachers should be trained on how to recognize signs of CA to stay vigilant.

Systematic reviewers have recommended extending educational efforts to community members ( Su et al., 2021 ). In COVID-19, public campaigns via television or social media, along with informative leaflets and handouts, are considered cost-effective ways to educate the public on available services and new policy initiatives ( Kourti et al., 2021 ). Su et al. (2021) proposed expanding the campaign’s scope to include both DV victims and abusers. Specifically, through integrated campaign interventions, communication and marketing resources need to deliver persuasive messages to DV victims, encouraging them to seek help, as well as educating DV offenders about the laws, regulations, and social consequences associated with DV abuse, which reduces the likelihood of further DV.

Multidisciplinary, Multi-Agency, and Cross-Country Collaborations

According to systematic reviewers, multipronged and multidisciplinary strategies are needed to address DV, both amid and beyond the pandemic, since DV solutions require people and resources from diverse fields, namely healthcare, law enforcement, laws, education, social science, social work, and technology ( Bayu, 2020 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ; Su et al., 2021 ).

Several systematic reviews also emphasize the need for collaboration and integration among different systems and social services when collecting data, selecting indicators, assessing impact, and designing interventions to combat DV ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ).

Specific examples of multi-agency partnerships include collaboration between police and local health protection teams to identify vulnerable women and children through linked datasets ( Viero et al., 2021 ) and team-based response units between COVID-19 testing and vaccination sites, police agencies, and DV response organizations to conduct abuse screenings and safety plans ( Piquero et al., 2021 ).

Furthermore, the systematic literature reviews emphasize the importance of international collaborative effort during a pandemic to develop key recommendations, establish an international protocol, and integrate international assistance into developing countries, and countries where technology-based solutions and legal frameworks are limited, to protect DV victims ( Bayu, 2020 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ). Technology advances have made multilingual experts around the world potential sources of assistance for DV victims. Global organizations and government agencies should therefore implement a system that connects international experts with individuals experiencing or at risk of DV all over the world ( Su et al., 2021 )

A Synthesis of Future Research Implications

Policy implications have been a focus during the systematic reviews related to COVID-19, but some reviews have outlined subject areas that merit more primary research, along with suggestions for research designs. Four recurring themes were identified, including longitudinal research, reliable and valid data, marginalized groups, and international/comparative research.

Longitudinal Research

It is still too early to tell what will happen with the pandemic. In the existing synthesis studies, primary studies were conducted during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic ( Rapp et al., 2021 ). The vast majority of studies investigating DV changes in response to pandemic-related lockdown orders only used short observation periods ( Piquero et al., 2021 ). Although it is evident that the COVID-19 pandemic has created a variety of circumstances that are known to indicate an increase in DV, DV continues to be high globally regardless of whether a pandemic is occurring, and services for DV remain critical regardless of the circumstances ( Cerna-Turoff et al., 2019 ). According to some experts, as people adjust to the new reality and seek assistance, these rates will steadily decline as the pandemic progresses ( Kourti et al., 2021 ). There is currently no way to fully assess the COVID-19 pandemic’s long-term impacts on DV ( Marmor et al., 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ).

Previous studies of natural catastrophes have demonstrated that it takes at least 1 year to confidently conclude that natural disasters cause greater levels and severity of DV than those found in non-disaster settings ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Cerna-Turoff et al., 2019 ). Systematic reviewers have recommended conducting longitudinal studies through ongoing data collection to determine if DV incidence has remained the same or changed over time during and after the pandemic, as well as if risk factors for DV remain similar or change over time ( Piquero et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ; Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). A comprehensive understanding of pandemic effects and their aftermath requires more well-designed studies published over time with more representative samples ( Abdo et al., 2020 ).

Reliable and Valid Data

Even though a large volume of literature exists on DV during COVID-19, most studies are not data driven, and few rigorous empirical studies estimate DV incidences during COVID-19 ( Abdo et al., 2020 ; Viero et al., 2021 ). According to several systematic reviews, DV data remain limited and of poor quality due to the absence of internationally accepted standards for measuring and producing statistics, as well as selection bias present in police, healthcare, and administrative datasets ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ). DV cases are defined and handled differently in different countries, states, and even different cities. It is possible that this variability has contributed to different DV reporting rates and incidence rates during COVID-19 ( Rapp et al., 2021 ).

The primary limitation of research conducted during COVID-19, aside from these general concerns about DV data, is the lack of data directly collected from DV victims ( Rapp et al., 2021 ). In part, this is due to social isolation, which makes it difficult to reach out to victims. Victim perspectives are essential to fully understand the nature and context of DV during COVID-19. The systematic reviewers recommend that future research should strive to develop innovative methods for including DV victims as active participants in their studies ( Marmor et al., 2021 ).

DV studies conducted within the COVID-19 context mainly focus on women and children, leaving out other family members ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Data were also lacking for DV among men and non-heterosexuals during COVID-19 ( Bradbury-Jones & Isham, 2020 ; Kourti et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). In directing future research, systematic reviewers have urged the scientific community to use reliable and valid data from multiple sources, including police agencies, shelters, clinical settings, and self-report victimization records so that they could estimate the varying forms of DV against different family members during and after the COVID-19 outbreak ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Piquero et al., 2021 ).

Marginalized Groups

As discussed previously, systematic reviewers have concluded that DV could be effectively addressed by an intersectional approach to prevention, screening, and intervention ( Sánchez et al., 2020 ). There are, however, only a few primary studies included in the existing systematic reviews that examine specific risk factors associated with marginalized groups ( Marmor et al., 2021 ). The cultural and contextual differences, as well as the possible disproportionate effects of the pandemic and restrictions on DV among vulnerable individuals in the community, were often overlooked in studies ( Marmor et al., 2021 ). Specifically, there was a shortage of literature on the current topics pertaining to people of color, the elderly, children, the disabled, the LGBT community, immigrants, asylum seekers, refugees, closed religious communities, and other minorities ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ). As recommended by systematic reviewers, future DV research should investigate the moderating effects of cultural, gender, religious, and other social identities on COVID-19/DV relationships, as well as how marginalized groups are affected differently by DV risk and protective factors ( Javed & Mehmood, 2020 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ; Pentaraki & Speake, 2020 ).

International and Comparative Research

The global nature of COVID-19 warrants further international and comparative research on DV ( Rapp et al., 2021 ). It is important to conduct international and comparative research on the pandemic’s impact in different countries that takes into account cultural norms, such as health behaviors, and the intersectionality of social identities, all of which may contribute to the unique combinations of risk factors and protective factors specific populations may experience ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Marmor et al., 2021 ). In addition to providing insights into DV trends during and after the pandemic, an international and comparative approach would allow for fully integrated findings and provide insights into possible imbalances in the pandemic’s effects on DV across different contexts and sectors of society ( Marmor et al., 2021 ).

Systematic reviewers have emphasized the importance of international collaboration to share information about DV during and after the COVID-19 pandemic ( Marmor et al., 2021 ). Additional information on the risk factors associated with DV at the different ecological levels is critically needed ( Dutton, 1995 ). Among the recommended strategies is to establish an international information registry. This registry, together with international data entry standards, will enable cross-country comparisons and generalizations of key findings on DV in pandemic contexts ( Cappa & Jijon, 2021 ; Rapp et al., 2021 ). Developing effective prevention measures will be impossible without these global efforts to accumulate the evidence base ( Marmor et al., 2021 ).

Public health leaders, women’s and children’s groups, and policymakers worldwide have expressed concerns about the pandemic’s potential to cause a spike in DV. The need for a better understanding of DV within the COVID-19 context cannot be overstated ( Piquero et al., 2021 ). To address this need, the present study synthesized 15 systematic review studies published across various disciplines pertaining to DV during the COVID-19 pandemic using a systematic meta-review approach. It is hoped that the findings of this review provide clear insight into current knowledge of prevalence, incidence, and contributing factors, which could help to develop evidence-informed DV prevention and intervention strategies.

Despite its contributions, we must acknowledge two limitations of this study. The first limitation relates to our search strategy. The current systematic meta-review did not search gray literature. Therefore, we cannot guarantee that we located all relevant systematic reviews ( Waller et al., 2021 ). Including detectable gray literature, however, would increase selection bias, since it is impossible to determine the representativeness of gray literature ( Tsuji et al., 2020 ). The quality of gray literature is also a concern, as most gray literature is not peer reviewed ( Pratt, 2010 ). Overall, we believe that ensuring the quality of systematic reviews included and preventing selection bias outweighs the concern about potential publication bias ( Kim, 2022 ; Pratt, 2010 ). Second, we need to recognize the inherent limitation of a systematic meta-review approach with regard to its contents. Because our meta-review relied on systematic reviewers’ work, it is less likely to provide the same level of detail reported in the primary studies ( Kim & Merlo, 2021 ). In other words, synthesizing systematic reviews may inevitably result in information loss as we move from primary studies to systematic reviews and then to the systematic meta-review ( Gibson et al., 2011 ). As a solution to this inherent limitation, we checked the primary studies whenever necessary to identify the details.

Implications for Future Systematic Reviews

The findings section outlines themes that recur in the implications for future primary research that the studies’ systematic reviewers proposed. Here we discuss four areas where systematic reviewers’ attention is warranted.

DV service provision systems : Prior systematic reviews have consistently described primary studies on health sectors in various countries, observing commonalities in the process and roles related to DV intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Kourti et al., 2021 ; Sánchez et al., 2020 ). Comparatively, concerning DV service provision systems, no systematic review exists. Instead, one existing systematic review ( Su et al., 2021 ) briefly summarized the development of DV services provision systems as well as legislation in three example countries (Australia, the UK, and China). According to Su et al. (2021) , Australia and the UK have similar DV service provision systems and adequate DV legislation, but China’s DV service provision systems lack availability, accessibility, and awareness, and their legislation is inadequate ( Su et al., 2021 ).

In the existing systematic reviews, there is very little data available on DV service provision systems, as well as no synthesis of research on the COVID-19 pandemic impact on these systems. There have been few primary studies on this topic, which might explain this ( Garcia et al., 2022 ). Several emerging studies, however, have examined the early-phase impacts of COVID-19 on domestic and family violence service provisions in multiple countries ( Carrington et al., 2021 ; Johnson et al., 2020 ; Murugan et al., 2022 ). These studies explored the views and experiences of service providers and practitioners on how they have adapted to changes in DV service delivery during COVID-19. Examples include studies conducted in Australia ( Carrington et al., 2021 ; Cortis et al., 2021 ; Pfitzner et al., 2021 ), the United States ( Garcia et al., 2022 ; Voth Schrag et al., 2022 ; Wood et al., 2022 ), and the UK ( Riddell & Haighton, 2022 ).

A brief review of the available studies revealed that four major service adaptations and changes have occurred across countries as a result of COVID-19, involving the shift toward remote service provision ( Carrington et al., 2021 ; Cortis et al., 2021 ; Riddell & Haighton, 2022 ; Sapire et al., 2022 ; Voth Schrag et al., 2022 ; Wood et al., 2022 ), a reduction in overall service capacity ( Cortis et al., 2021 ; Wood et al., 2022 ), inter-agency collaborations ( Garcia et al., 2022 ; Murugan et al., 2022 ; Riddell & Haighton, 2022 ), and the provision of limited DV services to historically oppressed or marginalized groups ( Garcia et al., 2022 ; Sapire et al., 2022 ).

These emerging studies also identified the unique characteristics of DV service provision systems and the challenges each country faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. As an example, in Australia, DV services transformed from preventative, early intervention approaches to crisis driven, reactive responses as a result of victims’ isolation with perpetrators ( Cortis et al., 2021 ). In the UK, national initiatives were introduced, while local authorities created their own service specifications. A range of specialist domestic abuse services was also delivered by the voluntary sector organizations ( Riddell & Haighton, 2022 ). In the United States, Sapire et al. (2022) reported that disruptions to gender-based violence services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic compounded long-term policy and funding constraints, leaving DV service providers unprepared for the challenges posed by the pandemic.

Further systematic reviews are needed to fully understand the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on DV service provision systems and policies worldwide ( Garcia et al., 2022 ). Specifically, the similarities and differences among countries in DV service adaptations, modifications to safety plans for survivors undergoing SAH and social distancing orders, and emergency preparedness plans must be identified, documented, and evaluated in systematic reviews. Using information from future systematic reviews, policymakers and service providers can prioritize DV services in emergencies, improve DV service delivery during a pandemic like COVID-19 by addressing barriers, and elevate policies addressing the structural oppressions affecting DV ( Garcia et al., 2022 ; Sapire et al., 2022 ; Wood et al., 2022 ).

Domestic homicide (DH) : The COVID-19 pandemic accompanied by uncertainty and unrest lead to an increase in firearm sales in the United States ( Lynch & Logan, 2022 ; Lyons et al., 2021 ). The link between firearm access and the risk of lethal IPV is well established ( Kaukinen, 2020 ; Wood et al., 2022 ), but little empirical research appears to have been conducted on the COVID-19 pandemic’s effects on DH. Lynch and Logan (2022) are among the exceptions. Based on the perception of DV service providers, this study examined gun violence and firearm access in the context of the pandemic. Nearly 30% of respondents reported that firearm-related homicides increased during the pandemic. Their responses, however, were not verified through official data.

While the limited data have been inconsistent outside the United States, reports have emerged of an apparent increase in DH during the COVID-19 pandemic. Through the analysis of newspaper articles, Barchielli et al. (2021) found that the number of women killed in the family/affective sphere in Italy increased by 5% during the COVID-19 lockdown. Furthermore, Bradbury-Jones and Isham (2020) reported in their editorial letter that DH incidences in the UK have increased since lockdown restrictions were implemented. Yet, they cautioned that it was too early to tell whether the increased reporting of these deaths was due to increased media attention or an actual increase in DH rates. Indeed, Stripe (2020) found an increase in the number of DHs recorded by the police in England and Wales in 2020, compared to the same period in 2019, but a slight decline compared to 2018.

Among the most rigorous studies with official data and sophisticated statistical techniques are Asik and Ozen (2020) , which examined the effect of social distancing measures on female homicides in Turkey. Compared to the same period between 2014 and 2019, the probability of a woman being killed by an intimate partner declined by about 57% during the period of strict social distancing measures, and by 83.8% during curfews. Given that most women are killed by ex-partners or by partners they are seeking separation from, Asik and Ozen (2020) suggested that the physical inability of ex-partners to reach the victims, fewer women leaving their current partners due to economic hardships and fears of infection, and/or an increased risk of being caught, may have contributed to the decline in DH. A number of potentially conflicting mechanisms may be at play in the pandemic, leaving questions about how it will affect DH ( Asik & Ozen, 2020 ). Further systematic reviews are needed to identify the prevalence and incidence of DH and to evaluate how country-specific situational factors, like firearm ownership, moderate COVID-19’s effects on DH rates ( Lynch & Logan, 2022 ; Wood et al., 2022 ).

Cases of heterogeneous perpetrators, victims, and circumstances : A variety of factors have contributed to DV vulnerability during the pandemic, according to systematic reviews. However, systematic reviewers have failed to identify and synthesize empirical research findings concerning risk factors specific to each social identity, suggesting that future systematic reviews need to pay particular attention to a heterogeneous group of perpetrators and victims with different social and economic backgrounds.

Existing systematic reviews cannot provide a comprehensive explanation of DV in the context of COVID-19, primarily due to the lack of discussion on macrosystem-level contributing factors. Researchers, especially feminist scholars, have emphasized the need to frame DV research within a social and cultural context encompassing all aspects of macrosystems, particularly the social norms around gender roles and patriarchy ( Malmquist, 2013 ). A macro-level contributory factor must be incorporated into future assessments of DV risks during pandemics ( Scott, 2020 ).

Each country implemented different protection measures at different times and in different ways. It could be helpful to compare the prevalence and patterns between countries with and without specific COVID-19 protection measures to understand the impacts of such measures on family dynamics and DV. In systematic reviews, the vast majority of primary studies included were conducted in developed countries, despite DV being a global issue. The more empirical research is conducted in developing countries, the easier it becomes for systematic reviewers to combine the findings and compare them with those from primary studies in developed countries, ultimately giving us more generalizable findings in the field.

Meta-analysis with an ecological perspective : The current systematic meta-review results suggest that the causes of DVs during COVID-19 may be complicated, and contributing factors may vary based on victim–perpetrator relationships, families, communities, and countries. Since all but one of the systematic reviews in the current study used a descriptive approach, this study was unable to directly compare the relative significance of contributing factors. To expand our knowledge of DV in the context of a pandemic, future systematic review studies need to employ a meta-analytic approach by estimating and comparing the effect sizes of different ecological system levels of risk factors to predict DV perpetration and victimization, which, in turn, can help practitioners identify potential offenders and victims in advance. There may be differences in the relative significance of the factors contributing to DV during the pandemic compared to what they were before ( Syibulhuda & Ediati, 2021 ). The results of a meta-analysis will be useful to fully integrate the findings and identify changes in the contributing factors’ effect sizes before and during the pandemic ( Marmor et al., 2021 ).

DV in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has been a subject of substantial scholarly inquiry across multiple disciplines. Our systematic meta-review contributes to the DV literature since it provides a more complete picture of DV by synthesizing systematic review results, identifying gaps in research and policies, and recommending future directions. Taken collectively, our findings suggest that DV occurs in a predictable and non-random manner, but within pandemic contexts, it exhibits diverse characteristics and dynamics. A single intervention will not be able to prevent all types of DV victimizations during the pandemic. When researchers and policymakers better understand the nature of DV and types of victimizations, they can allow limited resources to be allocated more efficiently and prevention strategies to be targeted at areas of greatest need. The development of evidence-informed policies, programs, and practices will require more systematic reviews and meta-analyses, especially those that apply the ecological approach as well as the multidisciplinary approach. It is also crucial that the international DV research community collaborates in order to better document, prevent, and address the potential for significant spikes in DV related to pandemics and develop strategies for knowledge dissemination.

Critical Findings:

• The research questions most frequently addressed in the DV and COVID-19 systematic reviews included in the current study relate to prevalence and incidence, contributing factors, mitigating policies and practices, and emerging issues in studies on DV in the context of COVID-19.
• The recurring themes related to policy and practice implications discussed in systematic reviews included basic and extensive-intensive services, digital equality, community development, an intersectional approach to marginalized groups, training/education/campaign for health professionals, teachers, and the public, and multidisciplinary, multi-agency, and cross-country collaborations.
• The recurring themes associated with implications for future primary research discussed in systematic reviews included the need for longitudinal research, reliable and valid data, the sample of marginalized groups, and international and comparative research.

Implications of the Review for Practice, Policy, and Research:

• Multipronged and multidisciplinary strategies are needed to address DV, both amid and beyond the pandemic, since DV solutions require people and resources from diverse fields, namely healthcare, law enforcement, laws, education, social science, social work, and technology
• Systematic reviewers have recommended conducting longitudinal studies through ongoing data collection to determine if DV incidence has remained the same or changed over time during and after the pandemic, as well as if risk factors for DV remain similar or change over time
• Future systematic review studies need to employ a meta-analytic approach by estimating and comparing the effect sizes of different ecological system levels of risk factors to predict DV perpetration and victimization, which, in turn, can help practitioners identify potential offenders and victims in advance.

Supplemental Material

Author biographies.

Bitna Kim , Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University. Specific areas of interest include a systemic review and meta-analysis of the risk factors and intervention/programs, multi-agency partnerships, and international/comparative criminology and criminal justice.

Meghan Royle , M.A., is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at Sam Houston State University whose research focuses on health criminology and related constructs. She graduated from the Univesity of Maine in 2019 with a B.S. in biology and from Sam Houston State University in 2021 with an M.A. in criminal justice and criminology.

1. In this article, the term “domestic violence” (DV) refers to all forms of violence committed within a family or domestic context. The term “intimate partner violence” (IPV) refers to a case of violence against partners, whereas the term “child abuse” (CA) refers to a case of violence against children.

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental Material: Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References marked with an asterisk indicate systematic reviews included in the current systematic meta-review.

• *Abdo C., Miranda E. P., Santos C. S., Júnior J. D., Bernardo W. M. (2020). Domestic violence and substance abuse during COVID19: A systematic review . Indian Journal of Psychiatry , 62 , S337–S342 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Asik G. A., Ozen E. N. (2020). It take a curfew: The effect of COVID-19 on female homicides (Working Paper No. 1443). The Economic Research Forum. www.erf.org.eg [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barchielli B., Baldi M., Paoli E., Roma P., Ferracuti S., Napoli C., Giannini A. M., Lausi G. (2021). When “stay at home” can be dangerous: Data on domestic violence in Italy during COVID-19 lockdown . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 , 8948. 10.3390/ijerph18178948 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Bayu E. K. (2020). The correlates of violence against women and surveillance of novel Coronavirus (COVID -19) pandemic outbreak globally: A systematic review and meta-analysis . Research on Humanities and Social Sciences , 10 , 1–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bradbury-Jones C., Isham L. (2020). The pandemic paradox: The consequences of COVID-19 on domestic violence . Journal of Clinical Nursing , 29 ( 13–14 ), 2047–2049. 10.1111/jocn.15296 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Campbell A. M. (2020). An increasing risk of family violence during the Covid-19 pandemic: Strengthening community collaborations to save lives . Forensic Science International: Reports , 2 , 100089. 10.1016/j.fsir.2020.100089 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Cappa C., Jijon I. (2021). COVID-19 and violence against children: A review of early studies . Child Abuse & Neglect , 116 , 105053. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carrington K., Morley C., Warren S., Ryan V., Ball M., Clarke J., Vitis L. (2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Australian domestic and family violence services and their clients . Australian Journal of Social Issues , 56 , 539–558. 10.1002/ajs4.183 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cerna-Turoff I., Fischer H. -T., Mayhew S., Devries K. (2019). Violence against children and natural disasters: A systematic review and meta-analysis of quantitative evidence . PLoS One , 14 ( 5 ): e0217719. 10.1371/journal.pone.0217719 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cervero R. M., Gaines J. K. (2015). The impact of CME on physician performance and patient health outcomes: An updated synthesis of systematic reviews . Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions , 35 ( 2 ), 131–138. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cortis N., Smyth C., Valentine K., Breckenridge J., Cullen P. (2021). Adapting service delivery during COVID-19: Experiences of domestic violence practitioners . British Journal of Social Work , 51 , 1779–1798. 10.1002/ijgo.13285 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dutton D. G. (1995). The domestic assault of women: Psychological and criminal justice perspectives . UBC Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garcia R., Henderson C., Randell K., Villaveces A., Katz A., Abioye F., DeGue S., Premo K., Miller-Wallfish S., Change J. C., Miller E., Ragavan M .I. (2022). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intimate partner violence advocates and agencies . Journal of Family Violence , 37 , 893–906. 10.1007/s10896-021-00337-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson M., Petticrew M., Bambra C., Sowden A. J., Wright K. E., Whitehead M. (2011). Housing and health inequalities: A synthesis of systematic reviews of interventions aimed at different pathways linking housing and health . Health & Place , 17 ( 1 ), 175–185. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jaspers M., Smeulers M., Vermeulen H., Peute L. W. (2011). Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: A synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings . Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , 18 ( 3 ), 327–334. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Javed S., Mehmood Y. (2020). No lockdown for domestic violence during COVID-19: A systematic review for the implication of mental-well being . Life and Science , 1 ( suppl ), 94–99. 10.37185/LnS.1.1.169 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Johnson K., Green L., Volpellier M., Kidenda S., McHale T., Naimer K., Mishori R. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on services for people affected by sexual and gender-based violence . International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics , 150 , 285–287. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaukinen C. (2020). When stay-at-home orders leave victims unsafe at home: Exploring the risk and consequences of intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic . American Journal of Criminal Justice , 45 , 668–679. 10.1007/s12103-020-09533-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B. (2021). Partner-killing of men by female intimate partners. In Shackelford Todd K. (Ed), The SAGE handbook of domestic violence (pp. 287–306): Sage. 10.4135/9781529742343.n18 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B. (2022). Publication bias: A “bird’s-eye view” of meta-analytic practice in criminology and criminal justice . Journal of Criminal Justice , 78 , 101878. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101878 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kim B., Merlo A. (2021). Domestic homicide: A synthesis of systematic review evidence . Trauma, Violence, and Abuse . Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F15248380211043812 [ PubMed ]
• *Kourti A., Stavridou A., Panagouli E., Psaltopoulou T., Spiliopoulou C., Tsolia M., Sergentanis T. N., Tsitsika A. (2021). Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse . Advance online publication. 10.1177/15248380211038690 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ]
• *Lausi G., Pizzo A., Cricenti C., Baldi M., Desiderio R., Giannini A. M., Mari E. (2021). Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A review of the phenomenon from victim’s and help professionals’ perspective . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 ( 12 ), 6204. 10.3390/ijerph18126204 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lynch K. R., Logan T. K. (2022). “Always know where the gun is”: Service providers perceptions of firearm access, violence, and safety planning during the COVID-19 pandemic . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 ( 21–22 ), NP19827–NP19856. 10.1177/08862605211046270 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lyons V. H., Haviland M. J., Azrael D., Adhia A., Bellenger M. A., Ellyson A., Rowhani-Rahbar A., Rivara F. P. (2021). Firearm purchasing and storage during the COVID-19 pandemic . Injury Prevention , 27 , 87–92. 10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043872 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Malmquist C. (2013). Infanticide/neonaticide: The outlier situation in the United States . Aggression and Violent Behavior , 18 ( 3 ), 399–408. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Marmor A., Cohen N., Katz C. (2021). Child maltreatment during COVID-19: Key conclusions and future directions based on a systematic literature review . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse . Advance online publication. 10.1177/15248380211043818 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ]
• Mazza M., Marano G., Lai C., Janiri L., Sani G. (2020). Danger in danger: Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine . Psychiatry Research , 289 , 113046. 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113046 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *McNeil A., Hicks L., Yalcinoz-Ucan B., Browne D. T. (2022). Prevalence & correlates of intimate partner violence during COVID-19: A rapid review . Journal of Family Violence , 38 , 241–261. 10.1007/s10896-022-00386-6 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D., Liberati A., Tetzlaff J., Altman D. G., The PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement . PLoS Medicine , 6 ( 6 ), e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Moreira D. N., da Costa M. P. (2020). The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic in the precipitation of intimate partner violence . International Journal of Law and Psychiatry , 71 , 101606. 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101606 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Murugan V., Weaver T. L., Schafer T., Rich Q. (2022). Crisis work embedded in a global crisis: The early phase impact of COVID-19 on survivors of intimate partner violence and service provisions . International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 19 ( 4728 ), 1–12. 10.3390/ijerph19084728 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Nasution L. A., Fitriana L. A. (2020). Factors affecting violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review . Journal Pendidikan ekperawatan Indonesia , 6 ( 2 ), 171–177. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Pentaraki M., Speake J. (2020). Domestic violence in a COVID-19 context: Exploring emerging issues through a systematic analysis of the literature . Open Journal of Social Sciences , 8 , 193–211. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfitzner N., Fitz-Gibbon K., Meyer S. (2021). Responding to women experiencing domestic and family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring experiences and impacts of remote service delivery in Australia . Child & Family Social Work , 27 , 30–40. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Piquero A., Jennings W., Jemison E., Kaukinen C., Knaul F. (2021). Domestic violence during COVID-19: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis . Journal of Criminal Justice , 74 , 101806. 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2021.101806 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pratt T. C. (2010). Meta-analysis in criminal justice and criminology: What it is, when it’s useful, and what to watch out for . Journal of Criminal Justice Education , 21 ( 2 ), 152–168. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ragavan M. I., Culyba A. J., Muhammad F. L., Miller E. (2020). Supporting adolescents and young adults exposed to or experiencing violence during the COVID-19 pandemic . Journal of Adolescent Health , 67 , 18–20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Rapp A., Fall G., Radomsky A. C., Santarossa S. (2021). Child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic rapid review . Pediatric Clinics , 68 ( 5 ), 991–1009. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Riddell H., Haighton C. (2022). Staff perspectives on the impact of COVID-19 on the delivery of specialist domestic abuse services in the UK: A qualitative study . PLOS Global Public Health , 2 ( 5 ), e0000310. 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000310 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Sánchez O. R., Vale D. B., Rodrigues L., Surita F. G. (2020). Violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic: An integrative review . International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics , 151 ( 2 ), 180–187. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sapire R., Ostrowski J., Maier M., Samari G., Bencomo C., McGovern T. (2022). COVID-19 and gender-based violence service provision in the United States . PLoS One , 17 ( 2 ), e0263970. 10.1371/journal.pgph.0000310 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Scott D. (2020). Reporting fatal neglect in child death review . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 21 ( 2 ), 382–392. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stripe N. (2020). Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales: November 2020 (pp. 1–27). Office for National Statistics. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Su Z., McDonnell D., Roth S., Li Q., Segalo S., Shi F., Wagers S. (2021). Mental health solutions for domestic violence victims amid COVID-19: A review of the literature . Globalization and Health , 17 , 67. 10.1186/s12992-021-00710-7 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• *Syibulhuda F. M., Ediati A. (2021). Risk factors of domestic violence reported before and during the Covid-19 pandemic: A systematic review . Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research , 530 , 116–123. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tsuji S., Cristia A., Frank M. C., Bergmann C. (2020). Addressing publication bias in meta-analysis: Empirical findings from community-augmented meta-analyses of infant language development . Zeitschrift fur Psychologie , 228 ( 1 ), 50–61. [ Google Scholar ]
• *Viero A., Barbara G., Montisci M., Kistermann K., Cattaneo C. (2021). Violence against women in the Covide-19 pandemic: A review of the literature and a call for shared strategies to tackle health and social emergencies . Forensic Science International , 319 , 110650. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2020.110650 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Voth Schrag R. J., Leat S., Backes B., Childress S., Wood L. (2022). “So many extra safety layers:” Virtual service provision and implementing social distancing in interpersonal violence service agencies during COVID-19 . Journal of Family Violence , 38 , 227–239. 10.1007/s10896-021-00350-w [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Waller B. Y., Harris J., Quinn C. R. (2021). Caught in the crossroad: An intersectional examination of African American women intimate partner violence survivors’ help seeking . Trauma, Violence, & Abuse , 23 ( 4 ), 1235–1248. 10.1177/1524838021991303 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson D. B., Olaghere A., Kimbrell C. (2019). Implementing juvenile drug treatment courts: A meta-aggregation of process evaluations . Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency , 56 ( 4 ), 605–645. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wood L., Voth Schrag R., Baumler E., Hairston D., Guillot-Wright S., Torres E., Temple J. R. (2022). On the front lines of the COVID-19 pandemic: Occupational experiences of the intimate partner violence and sexual assault workforce . Journal of Interpersonal Violence , 37 ( 11–12 ), NP9345–NP9366. 10.1177/0886260520983304 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

Feeling unsafe? Find support services   emergency? call 000

Emergency? Call 000

Find the right resources for your needs.

To help you find the right information we have collated key information relevant to the different members of our community. Please select the group that you relate to most from the list on the right.

• Government official or policy-maker
• Peak or advocacy body
• Practitioner
• Victim/survivor of domestic, family, or sexual violence
• Media representative
• I'm not sure

I'M INTERESTED IN

• Statistics: prevalence and community attitudes
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
• Culturally and linguistically diverse communities
• Women with disabilities
• Sexual violence and assault
• Children, young people and parenting
• Health, justice and systems-wide responses
• LGBTQ communities
• Perpetrator interventions

Our research

Violence against women and children affects everybody. It impacts on the health, wellbeing and safety of a significant proportion of Australians throughout all states and territories and places an enormous burden on the nation’s economy across family and community services, health and hospitals, income-support and criminal justice systems.

ANROWS Research

• Australian National Research Agenda
• ANROWS Research Grants
• Research program
• Core research
• Fourth Action Plan research
• National Community Attitudes Survey
• ANROWS Research Fund
• Action research and evaluation
• Sexual Harassment Research Program
• Perpetrator interventions research

anrows publications

• Publications suite
• Research to policy and practice papers
• Research reports
• Insights and special collections
• State of knowledge papers

RESEARCH DATABASES

• The ANROWS Evidence Portal
• ANROWS Digital Library
• Register of active research

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

• News and events

ANROWS hosts events as part of its knowledge transfer and exchange work, including public lectures, workshops and research launches. Details of upcoming ANROWS activities and news are available from the list on the right.

• Media releases
• Subscribe to our mailing list
• ANROWS & The Healing Foundation partnership: WorkUP Queensland

About ANROWS

ANROWS was established by the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments of Australia to produce, disseminate and assist in applying evidence for policy and practice addressing violence against women and their children.

ABOUT ANROWS

• ANROWS Board
• Stakeholders
• Reconciliation

To support the take-up of evidence, ANROWS offers a range of resources developed from research to support practitioners and policy-makers in delivering evidence-based interventions.

• Webinar program
• The Australian policy context
• Inquiries and submissions
• ANROWS Evidence Portal
• ANROWS Library

Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), Summary for Australia

.html-content{font-family:”AvenirBook”;line-height:1.6;font-size:16px}.html-content :is(p,h2,h3,h4,h5){margin:0;font-family:”AvenirBook”}.html-content img{max-width:100%}.html-content h1.cover-title{font-family:MinionPro;font-size:70px;font-weight:normal;line-height:1;margin-top:0}.html-content .detail-heading,.html-content .detail-body{font-size:.9rem;margin:.5rem 0}.html-content .detail-heading{font-weight:bold;margin-top:1rem}.html-content h2.researcher-heading,.html-content h2{font-size:1.2rem;margin-top:2rem;margin-bottom:.5em}.html-content .researcher-name{font-weight:bold;font-size:1rem}.html-content .researcher-title{margin-bottom:1rem;font-size:1rem}.html-content .two-columns{display:grid;grid-template-columns:repeat(2,1fr);margin:2rem 0;gap:2rem}.html-content .two-columns img{max-width:250px;margin-bottom:2rem}.html-content h2.section-title,#footnotes h2{font-size:2.5rem;font-weight:bold;margin-top:1em;margin-bottom:.5em;line-height:1.25}.html-content .toc-2 a{color:black;background:#fad03c;display:block;text-decoration:none;font-weight:bold;padding:4px 8px;margin:.5rem 0}.html-content .toc-2 a{border:0!important}.html-content .toc-3 a{text-decoration:none;color:black;margin-left:2rem;border:0!important}.html-content .toc-2 a:hover,.html-content .toc-3 a:hover{text-decoration:underline;text-underline-offset:2px}.html-content h3.heading-3{background:#fad03c;padding:1rem 2rem;margin:.5rem 0;font-size:1.2rem;font-weight:bold;margin-top:2em}.html-content table.key-definitions{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse}.html-content table.key-definitions th{background:#fad03c;padding:8px 10px;text-align:left}.html-content table.key-definitions td{padding:8px 10px;border-bottom:1px solid #fad03c;font-size:.9rem}.html-content table.key-definitions td:nth-child(1){font-weight:bold}.html-content p.body-medium{font-size:1.2rem;margin:1rem 0}.html-content p.body-text{margin:1rem 0}.html-content .body-medium-border-top,.html-content .body-large{font-weight:bold;border-top:10px dashed #fad03c;padding-top:8px;margin-top:3rem;font-size:1.2rem}.html-content .body-large{font-weight:normal}.html-content .list-item-body-medium{font-size:1.2rem}.html-content h4.heading-4{font-size:1.2rem;font-weight:bold;margin:1rem 0}.html-content .figure-table-note{font-size:.8rem;margin-top:1em}.html-content .callout-box-border-left{border-left:10px #fad03c dashed;padding-left:2rem;margin-bottom:2rem}.html-content .callout-box-border-left .body-large{border-top:none}.html-content .callout-box-subtitle{border-top:10px dashed #fad03c;margin-top:3em;padding-top:8px}.html-content .callout-box-heading-large{font-size:1.2rem;font-weight:bold;margin-top:1rem;margin-bottom:1rem}.html-content table.ncas-table{width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;margin-bottom:1rem}.html-content table.ncas-table th{background:#fad03c;padding:8px 10px}.html-content table.ncas-table td{border-bottom:1px solid #fad03c;padding:8px 10px}.html-content table.ncas-table td:nth-child(1){font-weight:bold}.html-content .table-subheading{font-size:1.1rem;font-weight:bold;margin-top:2em}.html-content h4.heading-4-grey{background:#e7e6e6;padding:.5rem 1rem;margin:1rem 0;font-size:1rem}.html-content h5.heading-5-large{font-size:1rem;color:black;text-transform:initial;letter-spacing:normal}.html-content .reference{font-size:.9rem;text-indent:-1.5rem;margin-left:1.5rem;word-wrap:break-word;margin-top:1rem;margin-bottom:1rem}.html-content .reference a{word-wrap:break-word}.html-content #footnotes li{margin:1rem 0}.html-content img.img_small{width:120px}.html-content li:has(ul){list-style:none}.html-content li.body-bullet-2{list-style:circle;margin-left:2rem}

ANROWS acknowledgement

This material was produced with funding from the Australian Government. Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) gratefully acknowledges the financial and other support it has received from the Australian Government, without which this work would not have been possible. The findings and views reported in this paper are those of the authors and cannot be attributed to the Australian Government.

Acknowledgement of Country

ANROWS acknowledges the Traditional Owners of the land across Australia on which we live and work. We pay our respects to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders past and present. We value Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander histories, cultures and knowledge. We are committed to standing and working with First Nations peoples, honouring the truths set out in the  Warawarni-gu Guma Statement .

Peer review process

The quality of ANROWS publications is ensured through a rigorous peer review process that is consistent with the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Review. This report has been assessed by at least two peer reviewers with relevant academic expertise.

© ANROWS 2023

With the exception of the ANROWS branding, content provided by third parties, and any material protected by a trademark, all material presented in this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU) licence.

The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/au/legalcode

Published by

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety Limited (ANROWS) PO Box Q389, Queen Victoria Building, NSW 1230 | www.anrows.org.au

ABN 67 162 349 171

ISBN: 978-1-922645-71-5 (paperback)

ISBN: 978-1-922645-70-8 (PDF)

Please note that there is the potential for minor revisions of this report. Please check the online version at www.anrows.org.au for any amendments.

Project lead

Dr Christine Coumarelos

Director, Research Program (NCAS), ANROWS

Research team

Dr Nicole Weeks

Senior Research Officer (NCAS), ANROWS

Dr Shireen Bernstein

Dr Natalie Roberts

Dr Nikki Honey

Executive Director, Quantitative Research Consulting, Social Research Centre

Kate Minter

Dr Erin Carlisle

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety

PO Box Q389,

Queen Victoria Building NSW 1230

Social Research Centre

Level 5, 350 Queen St

Melbourne VIC 3000

Author acknowledgement

We thank our research partner, the Social Research Centre (SRC), led by Dr Nikki Honey. The researchers and statisticians at the SRC who contributed to the data collection and statistical analysis included Andrew Ward, Laura Rimington, Sandra Ropero and Sebastian Misson.

We also thank the respondents who took the time to participate in the survey.

Acknowledgement of lived experiences of violence

ANROWS acknowledges the lives and experiences of the people affected by domestic, family and sexual violence who are represented in this report. We recognise the individual stories of courage, hope and resilience that form the basis of ANROWS research.

Caution: Some people may find parts of this content confronting or distressing. Recommended support services include 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732), Lifeline (13 11 14) and, for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people, 13YARN (13 92 76).

About this summary

This report is a summary of the “main report” on the 2021  National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey  (NCAS):

Coumarelos, C., Weeks, N., Bernstein, S., Roberts, N., Honey, N., Minter, K., & Carlisle, E. (2023).  Attitudes Matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), Findings for Australia  (Research report 02/2023). ANROWS.

This summary report is one among a suite of ANROWS resources being produced for the 2021 NCAS, all of which will be made available on the ANROWS website at www.anrows.org.au/research-program/ncas/.

This report addresses work covered in ANROWS’s National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS) Research Program. Please consult the  ANROWS website  for more information on this research program.

ANROWS research contributes to the shared vision to end gender-based violence in one generation of the  National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032  (the National Plan 2022–2032) and the six National Outcomes of the  National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022  (the National Plan 2010–2022). This research provides prevention and early intervention key indicators for the National Plan 2022–2032 and addresses National Outcome 1 – Communities are safe and free from violence, and National Outcome 2 – Relationships are respectful of the National Plan 2010–2022.

Suggested citation

Coumarelos, C., Weeks, N., Bernstein, S., Roberts, N., Honey, N., Minter, K., & Carlisle, E. (2023).  Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), Summary for Australia  (Research report, 03/2023). ANROWS.

Shortened forms and data symbols

Shortened forms, about the ncas, 1 introduction: violence against women and the need for action, 1.1 climate of violence against women, 1.2 facilitators of a climate of violence, 1.3 deconstructing the climate of violence: prevention, 2 research design, 2.1 aims of the 2021 ncas, 2.2 2021 ncas instrument, 2.3 sampling, 2.4 analysis and reporting, 3 findings: benchmarking understanding and attitudes, 3.1 change in understanding and attitudes over time, 3.2 understanding and attitudes in 2021, 3.3 conclusion, 4 findings: understanding of violence against women scale (uvaws), 4.1 uvaws in focus: recognise vaw subscale, 4.2 uvaws in focus: recognise dv subscale, 4.3 uvaws in focus: understand gendered dv subscale, 4.4 assessing the importance of demographics, 5 findings: attitudes towards gender inequality scale (agis), 5.1 agis in focus: reinforce gender roles subscale, 5.2 agis in focus: undermine leadership subscale, 5.3 agis in focus: limit autonomy subscale, 5.4 agis in focus: normalise sexism subscale, 5.5 agis in focus: deny inequality subscale, 5.6 assessing the importance of demographics and understanding, 6 findings: attitudes towards violence against women scale (avaws), 6.1 avaws in focus: minimise violence subscale, 6.2 avaws in focus: mistrust women subscale, 6.3 avaws in focus: objectify women subscale, 6.4 assessing the importance of demographics, understanding and attitudes, 7 findings: specific types of violence against women, 7.1 domestic violence, 7.2 sexual assault, 7.3 sexual harassment, 7.4 technology-facilitated abuse, 7.5 stalking, 8 findings: bystander response, 8.1 2021 ncas bystander scenarios, 8.2 bystander response to each scenario, 8.3 anticipated peer support or criticism, 8.4 barriers to bystander intention to intervene, 8.5 assessing the importance of demographics, understanding and attitudes, 9 findings: people and contexts, 9.1 gender, 9.3 sexuality, 9.4 disability, 9.5 country of birth and english proficiency, 9.6 formal education, 9.7 main labour activity, 9.8 socioeconomic status of area, 9.9 major cities, regional and remote areas, 9.10 gender composition of occupation and social contexts, 10 implications of the ncas findings for ending violence against women, 10.1 benchmarking understanding and attitudes, 10.2 understanding of violence against women (uvaws), 10.3 attitudes towards gender inequality (agis), 10.4 attitudes towards violence against women (avaws), 10.5 types of violence against women, 10.6 bystander response, 10.7 people and contexts.

The  National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey  (NCAS) is a periodic, representative survey of the Australian population that is conducted every four years. The NCAS measures the Australian community’s understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women, their attitudes towards gender inequality and their intentions to intervene when witnessing violence or disrespect against women.

It was established as a key means of monitoring progress against the  National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022  (the  National Plan 2010–2022 ) and will continue to evaluate progress against the current  National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032  (the National Plan 2022–2032; Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2010b, 2022). Community understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women are shaped by, and in part reflect, social norms embedded in organisational, community, institutional and societal practices, systems and structures.

Thus, the NCAS functions as a gauge for how Australia is progressing in changing the broader climate that facilitates and maintains violence against women. By highlighting problematic areas in the community’s understanding and attitudes towards violence against women, the NCAS provides valuable evidence to inform policy and practice in the prevention of this violence.

The 2021 NCAS sample consisted of 19,100 Australians aged 16 years or over, who were interviewed via mobile telephone.

The findings of the 2021 NCAS demonstrate gradual improvements in community understanding and attitudes regarding gender inequality and violence against women, suggesting encouraging progress towards the achievement of a community that offers equal opportunities to women and is safe and free from violence against women. However, further intervention is still necessary where harmful individual and social norms prevail. It is important to continue to challenge biases, myths and misconceptions regarding violence against women and gender inequality because these biases reflect the societal culture, including broad practices, processes, systems and structures, that maintains gender inequality and violence against women. These attitudes are also enacted in the responses to violence by police, the judiciary and community services in ways that may fail to deter perpetrators of violence against women and serve as systemic barriers to victims and survivors seeking justice and support.

Prevalence of violence against women

Violence against women, including violence perpetrated within intimate, domestic and family relationships, is a fundamental violation of human rights and a global social, health and economic problem (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014; World Health Organization [WHO], 2021).

In Australia, population-based prevalence studies indicate that, since the age of 15 years:

• 1 in 2 women have experienced sexual harassment 1 in 5 women have experienced sexual violence 1 in 4 women have experienced emotional abuse by a current or former partner
• 1 in 6 women have experienced physical violence by a partner
• 1 in 6 women have experienced  stalking (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2017)

Across the world, population-level data confirms that domestic violence is predominantly gendered. Women are overwhelmingly the victims of violence in intimate relationships and sexual violence and men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of this violence.

(ABS, 2017; European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014; WHO, 2021)

Women are also much more likely than men to suffer serious harm because of this violence, with Australian women around six times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of domestic violence and around four times more likely to be murdered by an intimate partner (Australian Institute of Health & Welfare [AIHW], 2022a, 2022b; Serpell et al., 2022).

Demographic factors correlated with risk of victimisation

The intersections of a range of structural and systemic forms of oppression and discrimination produce particular forms and patterns of violence against women, increase the prevalence or severity of this violence, and limit or undermine individual and systemic consequences for the use of this violence. A wide range of demographic factors have been associated with increased risk of women experiencing violence including cultural, ethnic, age, ability, gender and sexuality factors (Kulkarni, 2019; K. Morgan et al., 2016; Our Watch, 2021, p. 17; Our Watch et al., 2015; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005; Thiara et al., 2011). For example, all forms of violence against Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women occur at higher rates and are more likely to have severe physical and social impacts than violence against non-Indigenous Australian women (ABS, 2017; AIHW, 2018; Bartels, 2010; Closing the Gap Clearinghouse, 2013; eSafety Commissioner [eSafety], 2017; Our Watch, 2018b; Powell et al., 2022). Similarly, based on specific cultural or religious imperatives, some women may be at heightened risk of specific forms of culturally sanctioned violence, such as forced or child marriage, marital rape, dowry-related violence and female genital mutilation (Adinkrah, 2011; Gethin, 2019; Lyneham & Bricknell, 2018; Ogunsiji et al., 2018; WHO, 2022). The prevalence of different types of violence also varies by age. Younger women are at higher risk of many forms of violence, including stalking, sexual assault, sexual harassment and intimate partner violence, compared to both younger men and older women (ABS, 2017; AIHW, 2019b). Older women have higher risk than older men of specific forms of elder abuse, such as neglect, sexual abuse and psychological abuse (Qu et al., 2021). Evidence over the last decade also indicates that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to experience sexual violence and family violence (DeKeseredy et al., 2021; Edwards, Sylaska, Barry, et al., 2015; Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015; Horsley, 2015; Messinger, 2017; Peitzmeier et al., 2020; Snyder et al., 2018). Likewise, evidence indicates that women with disability have increased prevalence of certain types of violence or abuse, such as emotional abuse by a current or former partner (AIHW, 2019b; Lund, 2020; Mailhot Amborski et al., 2021; Tomsa et al., 2021).

Impacts of violence against women

Violence against women produces a profound and long-term toll on victims’ and survivors’ health and wellbeing, on families and communities, and on our broader society. These consequences include acute and chronic health impacts for victims and survivors, such as depressive, anxiety and alcohol use disorders; early pregnancy loss; physical injury and homicide; and suicide and self-inflicted injuries (ABS, 2017; AIHW, 2019a; Serpell et al., 2022). In addition, domestic and family violence engenders significant social and psychological costs for victims and survivors, their families, and the broader community, with increased risk of child abuse and neglect and of adverse impacts on emotional and psychological wellbeing, cognitive functioning, learning, and the ability to develop positive relationships (Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety [ANROWS], 2018; AIHW, 2019a; Dembo et al., 2018; KPMG, 2016; Miller-Graff et al., 2016). The total economic cost of violence against women in Australia in 2015–16 was estimated to be $22–26 billion (KPMG, 2016). The prevalence and adverse impacts of violence against women reveal that considerable progress is needed to meet the target of the National Plan 2022–2032 to “end violence against women and children in one generation” (Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2022, p. 55).

Violence against women produces a profound and long-term toll on victims’ and survivors’ health and wellbeing, on families and communities, and on our broader society.

Key events regarding violence against women since 2017

Key events in Australia and globally since the 2017 NCAS may have amplified the focus on violence against women. One noteworthy global event since the last NCAS is the COVID-19 pandemic. The balance of evidence indicates that the pandemic exacerbated violence against women and its adverse impacts (AIHW, 2021; Boxall & Morgan, 2021; Dalton, 2020; Gosangi et al., 2020; Kourti et al., 2021). Indeed, some authors have described gender-based violence in the era of COVID-19 as a “twin” or “shadow” pandemic (Dlamini, 2021; Pfitzner et al., 2020; Sri et al., 2021). Several factors may have contributed to the observed increases in violence against women during the COVID-19 pandemic, including situational stressors, such as lockdowns necessitating close ongoing contact between victims and survivors and perpetrators; job losses leading to economic hardship; reduced access to support services (particularly face-to-face services); and a range of other individual exacerbating factors (Boserup et al., 2020; Nancarrow, 2020; Zhang, 2020).

Beyond the pandemic, however, a context of tolerance, wilful ignorance and endorsement of violence against women has persisted both internationally and within Australia between 2017 and 2022, exemplified by a series of high-profile legal cases and incidents of violence. However, the period since 2017 was also one of increased momentum and advocacy, with pivotal movements and legislative reforms focused on rejecting violence against women. For example, the #MeToo movement brought violence against women, particularly sexual violence, to the forefront of public consciousness and this impetus for change spread swiftly from the internet to courtrooms and the broader international community (Chandra & Erlingsdóttir, 2021; Hillstrom, 2019).

In Australia, community pressure and advocacy resulted in steps towards changing the way sexual assault is recognised and legally defined, with “affirmative” sexual consent becoming the standard for assessing the occurrence of sexual assault in some jurisdictions, although this standard is yet to be adopted across Australia (ACT Government, 2022; NSW Government, 2021; Premier of Victoria, 2022; Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy, 2021; Teach Us Consent, 2021; The STOP Campaign, 2022). New South Wales was one of the earliest states to change its consent laws and now requires individuals to establish affirmative consent by taking active steps to confirm consent, recognising that silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent and that consent may be withdrawn at any point during sexual activity (NSW Government Communities and Justice, 2022). However, this standard is yet to be adopted uniformly across Australia.

Similarly, there have been significant shifts towards addressing and legislating against coercive control as a form of domestic and family violence. Coercive control is an abusive pattern of behaviour used to establish and maintain power over another person and may include limiting a partner’s access to money, controlling who they see, threats and intimidation, persistent texting and tracking their movements, and a range of other behaviours (COAG, 2022). The Australian Government’s  National principles to address coercive control: Consultation draft  was released in September 2022 and aims to facilitate a coordinated national approach to coercive control in terms of criminalisation as well as primary prevention, early intervention, response and recovery. It provides guidance to states and territories to consider their approach to coercive control in consultation with victims and survivors and with careful consideration of potential unintended consequences of criminalisation and impacts on the communities in their jurisdiction (ANROWS, 2021; Meeting of Attorneys-General, 2022).

Social ecology of violence against women

Violence against women is a complex phenomenon that is underpinned by multiple factors (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2022; Heise, 1998; Our Watch, 2021). The socioecological model of violence against women considers the complex interplay between factors at all the different levels within society: the individual and relationship level, the organisational and community level, the system and institutional level, and the societal level (CDC, 2022; Heise, 1998). These interacting factors across the social ecology can place people at greater risk or buffer them from experiencing or perpetrating violence (CDC, 2022; Heise, 1998). Crucially, the socioecological model recognises both gender inequality and other inequalities underpinned by oppression and discrimination as  key underlying drivers  of violence against women and drivers of differential outcomes from the perpetration of this violence (Carman et al., 2020; Hulley et al., 2021; Our Watch, 2021; Weldon & Kerr, 2020). Gender, economic and social inequalities that maintain violence against women can be facilitated or disrupted at each level within the social ecology, including:

• at the societal level  through social and cultural norms and broad health, economic, educational and social policies (CDC, 2022; Flood, 2020; Lowe et al., 2022; Rizzo et al., 2020; Sabol et al., 2020)
• at the system and institutional level  through formal and informal structures, rules and legislation, such as those pertaining to patriarchal hierarchies (Hardesty & Ogolsky, 2020; Our Watch, 2021; Song et al., 2020)
• at the organisational and community level  through norms, structures and practices, such as those in schools, workplaces and neighbourhoods (Banyard et al., 2019; Copp et al., 2019; C. Jackson & Sundaram, 2018; Kidman & Kohler, 2020; Yeo et al., 2021)
• at the individual and relationship level  through people’s experiences, attitudes, knowledge and skills, and their peer, intimate and familial relationships (Bell & Higgins, 2015; Corboz et al., 2016; DeKeseredy et al., 2018; Flood, 2008, 2019a; Ha et al., 2019; Hamai & Felitti, 2021; Kimber et al., 2015; Leen et al., 2012; Ogilvie et al., 2022).

Gender inequality as a driver of violence against women

Many forms of violence against women are underpinned by gender inequality, which can be manifested in the gender norms, structures, systems and practices that privilege men and discriminate against women (Flood, 2019b; Our Watch, 2021; Webster et al., 2018; WHO, 2022). Gender inequality is a social problem in which women and men do not have equal social standing, value, power, resources or opportunities in society, providing a key context that facilitates and maintains violence against women (Our Watch, 2021). Australia lags behind many countries on various indicators of gender equality (Australian Human Rights Commission [AHRC], 2018; Workplace Gender Equality Agency [WGEA], 2022). Attitudes supportive of gender inequality have been associated with the actual perpetration of violence against women (Ozaki & Otis, 2017; Pöllänen et al., 2018; Reed et al., 2018; Verroya et al., 2022; Wahid et al., 2018). Gendered drivers of violence include attitudes which condone violence against women, support rigid gender roles, tolerate disrespect or aggression towards women, and endorse limits to women’s decision-making and independence (Our Watch, 2021). These gendered drivers are informed by two key operating principles, namely sexist ideology and misogyny (Manne, 2017; Our Watch, 2021). Sexist ideology is defined by rigid gendered beliefs which justify existing systems and structures and maintain patriarchal social relations (Our Watch, 2021). Sexism can be overtly “hostile” or it can be more subtle and seemingly “benevolent” in that it is enacted under the guise of men’s role to protect and provide for women (Glick & Fiske, 1997). Misogyny is a moral manifestation of sexist ideology involving “hostile” prejudice and contempt of women, and functions to enforce patriarchal social relations wherever they are challenged (Manne, 2017; Respect Victoria & Our Watch, 2022). The Change the Story framework also identifies four reinforcing factors which do not drive violence on their own but can contribute to or exacerbate violence against women. These are condoning of violence in general, the experience of and exposure to violence, a range of factors that weaken prosocial behaviour, and resistance to or backlash against violence prevention and gender equality (Our Watch, 2021).

Other inequalities as drivers of violence against women: An intersectional approach

However, gender inequality is not the sole driver of violence against women, nor necessarily the principal driver of violence and abuse in all contexts (Our Watch, 2021). Violence against women also occurs within a context of multiple, intersecting and mutually compounding forms of oppression, discrimination, and unequal power and privilege, which operate within and across each level of the social ecology (Our Watch, 2021). These intersecting inequalities can increase the prevalence or severity of violence, produce different manifestations of violence and differential outcomes, and weaken individual and structural consequences for the use of violence against marginalised women (Annamma et al., 2018; Carman et al., 2020; Crenshaw, 1989, 1991; Fiolet et al., 2019; Ghafournia & Easteal, 2018; Kulkarni, 2019; Lockhart & Danis, 2010; E. M. Morgan & Zurbriggen, 2016; Our Watch, 2018a, 2018b, 2021; Our Watch & Women with Disabilities Victoria, 2021; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005; Thiara et al., 2011). For example, intersecting inequalities have been argued to produce specific barriers to help-seeking or worse outcomes for particular groups of marginalised women, including Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women, migrant and refugee women, women with disability and LGBTQ+ women (Callander et al., 2019; Calton et al., 2015; Cripps, 2021; Edwards, Sylaska, & Neal, 2015; Femi-Ajao et al., 2020; Frawley & Wilson, 2016; Hulley et al., 2021; Koh et al., 2021; Langton et al., 2020; Messinger, 2017; Murray et al., 2019; Nancarrow et al., 2020; Serrato Calero et al., 2020; Stein et al., 2018; Streur et al., 2019; Ussher et al., 2020; Watego et al., 2021).

Individual attitudes and violence against women

Individual attitudes are an important factor in the facilitation and perpetuation of violence against women, as identified in the sociological model discussed above. “Attitudes” are defined as evaluations of a particular subject (e.g. a person, concept, behaviour or event) and usually exist along a continuum from less to more favourable (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). Attitudes comprise three components: a cognitive component, reflecting thoughts and beliefs about the subject; an affective component, reflecting feelings associated with the subject; and a behavioural component, reflecting the attitude’s influence on actual behaviour (Breckler, 1984; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). An attitude may be explicit or implicit – that is, the individual may or may not be consciously aware of their attitude and how it impacts their behaviour. Although attitudes are often enduring, they can potentially be altered via new experiences and education (Albarracin & Shavitt, 2018; Suedfeld, 2017).

The relationship between an individual’s attitudes and their behaviour is not straightforward. The motivational bases and characteristics of the attitude, such as its intensity and importance, can affect how much the attitude will impact behaviour (Kelman, 2017). Attitudes are only one of the factors that can influence behaviour. According to the socioecological model, people’s attitudes are an individual-level factor that can interact with a broad range of other factors at different levels of society to facilitate violence against women (Callaghan et al., 2018; Debowska et al., 2015; Ozaki & Otis, 2017; Seff, 2021).

The NCAS examines individual understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women, gender inequality and intentions to intervene prosocially as a witness to violence against women, providing a snapshot of the “normative” or typical attitudes and understanding of the Australian community regarding violence against women at a specific point in time.

Given that attitudes are shaped by, and in part reflect, broader organisational, community, institutional and societal systems and structures, the NCAS also functions as a gauge for how Australia is progressing in changing the broader climate that facilitates and maintains violence against women.

The impacts of violence against women can be reduced by taking decisive action to prevent violence before it starts, intervening early, responding appropriately to violence when it occurs, and supporting recovery and healing (COAG, 2022). Ending violence against women requires addressing the range of drivers and oppressions that enable and reinforce violence against women, including violence against the most marginalised groups of women who remain overrepresented in victimisation data and who confront unique challenges in accessing support and assistance (Kulkarni, 2019; K. Morgan et al., 2016; Our Watch, 2021; Our Watch et al., 2015; Sokoloff & Dupont, 2005; Thiara et al., 2011).

As outlined in the National Plan 2022–2032, initiatives for preventing violence against women can be divided into four types (COAG, 2022; Our Watch, 2021; VicHealth, 2017):

• Prevention  (also described as primary prevention) – working to change the underlying social drivers of violence by addressing the attitudes and systems that drive violence against women and children to stop it before it starts.
• Early intervention  (also described as secondary prevention) – identifying and supporting individuals who are at high risk of experiencing or perpetrating violence and preventing violence from escalating or reoccurring.
• Response  (also described as tertiary prevention) – providing services and supports to address existing violence and support victims and survivors experiencing violence, including via crisis support and police intervention, and fostering a trauma-informed justice system that will hold people who use violence to account.
• Recovery and healing  (also described as tertiary prevention) – helping to reduce the risk of victim and survivor re-traumatisation, and supporting victims and survivors to be safe and healthy, and to recover from trauma and the physical, mental, emotional, and economic impacts of violence (COAG, 2022).

For clarity, throughout this report, “primary prevention” is used to refer specifically to actions consistent with Domain 1 (Prevention) from the National Plan 2022–2032. In addition, “prevention” is used as a more general term that can include actions consistent with any, some or all of the domains of the National Plan 2022­–2032 (COAG, 2022).

The National Plan 2022–2032 also describes six guiding principles that inform action on the four domains to address violence against women (Our Watch, 2021a; COAG, 2022). The six guiding principles are:

• Advancing gender equality , which recognises that achieving gender equality is fundamental to both advancing human rights for Australians and addressing a key driver of violence against women. The National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality is a federal government initiative that seeks to address the structural, social and economic barriers to advancing gender equality in Australia (COAG, 2022).
• Closing the Gap , which is an agreement by all Australian governments and the Coalition of Peaks,  a representative body of over 80 Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander community–controlled peak organisations and members.  The objective of this agreement is to enable Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples and governments to work together to overcome the inequality experienced by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples, including in relation to violence against women.
• Centring victim and survivors  ensures that their lived experiences, perspectives and direct knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of current systems, structures and interventions is acknowledged, heard and respected as a key ingredient for policy development and reform.
• Accountability,  which is an intention to focus attention and expectations on the actions of people who choose to use violence. This involves trust and support for victims and survivors and avoiding victim-blaming in any context. Similarly, perpetrators are to be held accountable and supported to take responsibility for their violence with appropriate legal and social sanctions and consequences.
• Intersectionality,  which recognises that violence against women exists in relation to multiple and intersecting structural and systemic forms of discrimination, such as racism, colonialism, ableism, homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, and ageism. This recognises that gender and gender inequality may be constructed and experienced differently and may not be the most significant factor in violence against all women. Actions from prevention through to recovery and healing must therefore respond to the diversity of women and children.
• Person-centred co-ordination and integration,  which strives for trauma-informed, person-focused and holistically integrated responses from the specialised services and systems that support victims and survivors through their recovery and healing.

Prevention of violence against women requires multiple types of actions and initiatives across the social ecology, including in key settings such as schools and universities, workplaces, clubs and sporting institutions, and the media, and in the justice and health service systems (COAG, 2022; Our Watch, 2021).

The NCAS instrument is premised on the idea that achieving the objective of ending violence against women in one generation, is facilitated by the population:

• having a strong understanding of the nature of violence against women, including its diverse and nuanced forms (see National Plan 2022–2032, “Early intervention key indicators”; COAG, 2022, p. 31)
• strongly rejecting attitudes that condone gender inequality and violence against women (see National Plan 2022–2032, “Prevention key indicators”; COAG, 2022, p. 31)
• being prepared to intervene when witnessing violence or abuse against women (see National Plan 2022–2032, “Early intervention key indicators”; COAG, 2022, p. 31).
• Benchmark the Australian population’s understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women, attitudes towards gender equality and intention to intervene prosocially when witnessing abuse or disrespect of women
• Determine if understanding and attitudes have improved since the 2017 NCAS
• Identify any notable gaps in understanding or more problematic attitudes
• Identify demographic, attitudinal and contextual factors that are associated with problematic understanding and attitudes

The 2021 instrument included demographic items, items measuring understanding or attitudes regarding violence against women, attitudes towards gender inequality, and scenario-based items examining bystander responses when witnessing abuse or disrespect against women (Figure 2-1). Most items were retained from the 2017 NCAS to ensure reliable measurement of changes over time.

Items and scales measuring understanding and attitudes

Understanding and attitude items were grouped into nine psychometric scales, validated via Rasch analysis. The strength of psychometrically validated scales is that they can measure a complex overall construct or concept (such as attitudes towards violence) that would be difficult to measure with a single item. The scales include the Gendered Violence and Inequality Scale (GVIS), which is an overarching “mega scale” that includes all understanding and attitude items that sit in one of the other eight scales. The other eight scales included three “main” scales, namely:

• the Understanding of Violence against Women Scale (UVAWS)
• the Attitudes towards Gender Inequality Scale (AGIS)
• the Attitudes towards Violence against Women Scale (AVAWS).

Each main scale also includes subscales (identified via factor analysis), which measure key themes within the broader construct measured by the scale. In addition, five “type of violence” scales were developed to measure attitudes towards specific types of violence, namely:

• the Domestic Violence Scale (DVS)
• the Sexual Violence Scale (SVS), which was divided into the Sexual Assault Scale (SAS) and the Sexual Harassment Scale (SHS)
• the Technology-Facilitated Abuse Scale (TFAS).

All type of violence scales measure attitudes, apart from the TFAS which measures both understanding and attitudes regarding technology-facilitated abuse. Together, the Domestic Violence Scale (DVS) and Sexual Violence Scale (SVS) comprised all but two of the 43 items in the Attitudes towards Violence against Women Scale (AVAWS).

Changes to NCAS instrument

New or revised demographic items were included in 2021 on gender, sexuality and disability to provide additional and more inclusive demographic information, including capturing gender identity, diversity and experience more accurately and better capturing the range of physical, mental health and intellectual conditions and their impact on core activities. For the first time, the NCAS provides results for non-binary respondents and sexuality-diverse respondents.

New items were also added to better measure understanding and attitudes regarding forms of violence that have emerged more recently or have not been a major focus of the NCAS previously. Items were added on forms of violence against women that are related to intersectional forms of oppression, based on a partner’s migrant status, disability, gender experience, sexuality or religion. Items were also added on technology-facilitated abuse, sexual harassment and stalking.

The sample consisted of 19,100 Australians aged 16 years or over, who were interviewed via mobile telephone between 23 February and 18 July 2021. The sampling approach largely involved random digit dialling (RDD) of mobile telephones, which was supplemented or “topped up” with listed mobile telephones. Eighty-one per cent of the interviews were achieved via RDD mobiles. The response rate was 11 per cent. [1]

To strengthen confidence that the survey results accurately represent the population, responses were weighted based on population benchmarks to align the sample and population demographic profiles within each state and territory.

Figure 2-1:

Components of the NCAS instrument, 2021

Note: DV = domestic violence; VAW = violence against women.

Data analysis was conducted both on individual items and on scale and subscale scores.

Item codes:  To simplify reporting, each item was assigned an alphanumeric code (e.g. “V1”). The letter in the code identifies the item’s thematic topic (V = violence against women; D = domestic violence; S = sexual violence; G = gender inequality; B = bystander response). The number corresponds to the order that items within a thematic topic are presented in the NCAS instrument.

Scale scores:  Each respondent received a (rescaled Rasch) score on each scale and subscale, based on their responses to the items in the scale or subscale. Scores on each scale or subscale could range from 0 to 100. As a society committed to reducing violence against women, we are aiming for higher scores on all NCAS scales and subscales. Higher scores indicate a higher understanding of violence against women (UVAWS, TFAS), higher attitudinal rejection of gender inequality (AGIS) and higher attitudinal rejection of violence against women in its various forms (AVAWS, DVS, SVS, SAS, SHS, TFAS).

“Advanced” understanding and rejection of problematic attitudes:  For each scale, each respondent was placed into one of two categories: “advanced” or “developing”. For the UVAWS, these categories represented “advanced” or “developing” understanding. For the scales measuring attitudes (AGIS, AVAWS, DVS, SVS), these categories represented “advanced” or “developing” rejection of problematic attitudes. The criteria used to define “advanced” understanding and “advanced” attitudes were as follows:

• Respondents in the “advanced” understanding category answered “yes, always” the behaviour is violence to at least 75 per cent of the UVAWS items and “yes, usually” to the remaining UVAWS items (or the equivalent).
• Respondents in the “advanced” rejection category for each attitude scale “strongly disagreed” with at least 75 per cent of the items in the scale, which described problematic attitudes, and “somewhat disagreed” with the remaining items in the scale (or the equivalent). [2]

Univariate, bivariate and multivariate data analyses were conducted as summarised below.

Univariate analysis  involves one variable only and was used to report on the sample’s responses to each understanding, attitude and bystander item and the percentage of the sample categorised as having “advanced” understanding or attitudes according to each scale.

Bivariate analysis  examines the direct or straightforward relationship between two variables only, such as an outcome of interest (e.g. understanding of violence against women) and one other variable or factor (e.g. a demographic factor such as age), without taking into account the effect of any other variables or factors.

Multiple regression  examines the relationship of an outcome variable of interest (e.g. attitudes towards violence against women) to  multiple  factors (or input variables) considered together (e.g. multiple demographic characteristics). Multiple regression analysis has the advantage that it can determine which of multiple factors are  independently  related to or “predict” the outcome variable,  after  accounting for any relationships between the factors, and are  most important  in predicting the outcome variable.

Up to four multiple regression models [3]  were conducted for each outcome variable (UVAWS, AGIS, AVAWS, and likelihood of bystander responses) to examine whether the outcome variable could be predicted by:

• demographic factors (Model 1)
• relevant scale scores (Model 2)
• demographic factors and relevant scale scores combined (Model 3)
• relevant subscales (Model 4).

Throughout the report   “significant”   refers to  statistically significant  findings where we can be confident (with 95% certainty) that the difference observed in the survey sample is meaningful and likely to represent a true difference in the Australian population ( p  < 0.05) that is not negligible in size (Cohen’s  d ≥  0.2 or equivalent).

Benchmarking the population’s understanding and attitudes regarding gender equality and violence against women over time allows us to track Australia’s progress towards key indicators for “ending gender-based violence in one generation”  (COAG, 2022, p. 28). Scores on the NCAS scales were used to report on the Australian population’s understanding and attitudes in 2021 and over time.

Chapter results summary

Benchmarking understanding and attitudes

• Australians’ understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women and gender inequality have improved slowly but significantly over time, with significant improvement on all NCAS scales between 2013 and 2021.
• Between 2017 and 2021, there were significant improvements in Australians’ understanding of violence against women and attitudinal rejection of gender inequality. While attitudinal rejection of sexual violence also improved significantly between 2017 and 2021, attitudinal rejection of domestic violence plateaued during this period. Nonetheless, Australians’ understanding of violence and their attitudes to both gender inequality and violence against women were at a comparable level in 2021.

In 2021, while respondents had high awareness that violence against women is a national problem, their awareness that violence against women transcends all communities, including their own local area, was much lower (Figure 3-1). Specifically, most respondents agreed, either somewhat or strongly, that violence against women is a problem in Australia (91%; item V1). However, far fewer respondents agreed, either somewhat or strongly, that violence against women is a problem in the suburb or town where they live (47%; item V2). This finding suggests a misconception that violence tends to occur generally outside one’s own networks, rather than everywhere, which may impede recognition that violence is a community-wide social problem requiring action at all levels of society.

Figure 3-1: Perception of violence against women as a problem, 2021

Note:  N  = 5,120. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 due to rounding.

Figures 3-2 to 3-4 show changes in mean scale scores over time. The Australian population’s overall understanding and attitudinal rejection of gendered violence and gender inequality improved significantly over time (mean GVIS score; Figure 3-2). In 2021 compared to previous years (2009, 2013 and 2017), respondents demonstrated significantly higher understanding of violence against women (mean UVAWS score) and significantly higher attitudinal rejection of gender inequality (mean AGIS score; Figure 3-3). However, attitudinal rejection of violence against women improved more slowly (mean AVAWS score). There was no significant improvement in rejection of violence against women between 2017 and 2021, despite a significant improvement compared to 2009 and 2013 (mean AVAWS score; Figure 3-3). This plateauing since 2017 on the AVAWS largely reflected a lack of significant improvement in attitudes towards domestic violence (mean DVS score), as attitudes towards sexual violence (mean SVS score) did show significant improvement between 2017 and 2021 (Figure 3-4).

The mean scores in 2021 were similar for the three main scales (UVAWS, AGIS, AVAWS), indicating that the population’s understanding of violence and its attitudes towards both gender inequality and violence against women were at a comparable level in 2021 (Figure 3-3).

Figure 3-2: Understanding and rejection of gendered violence and inequality (GVIS scores) over time, 2009 to 2021

* Statistically significant difference on this scale between the year indicated and 2021.

Figure 3-3: Understanding (UVAWS) and attitudes (AGIS, AVAWS) over time, 2009 to 2021

Note:  N s in 2009, 2013, 2017 and 2021 were as follows:

UVAWS – 10,033; 17,402; 8,606; 19,096

AGIS – 8,909; 15,178; 17,528; 19,040

AVAWS – 3,743; 5,478; 17,538; 19,097.

Note:  “na” below means reliable data was not available.  N s in 2009, 2013, 2017 and 2021 were:

DVS – 4,970; 6,850; 17,537; 19,088

SVS – na; na; 17,419; 19,031

TFAS – na; na; na; 19,067.

There were no significant differences between scales in 2021.

There is still substantial work to be done to improve community understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women and gender inequality in Australia. As Figure 3-5 shows, in 2021, a minority of respondents (28–44%) demonstrated “advanced”:

• understanding of violence against women (UVAWS)
• rejection of gender inequality (AGIS)
• rejection of violence against women (AVAWS), including rejection of sexual violence (SVS) and domestic violence (DVS)
• understanding and rejection of technology-facilitated abuse (TFAS).

Note:  N  = 19,100. “Advanced” understanding refers to answering “yes, always” the behaviour is violence to at least 75% of items and “yes, usually” to the remaining items (UVAWS). “Advanced” attitudes refer to answering “strongly disagree” to at least 75% of the items in the scale and “somewhat disagree” to the remaining items in the scale, which condoned gender inequality (AGIS), condoned violence (AVAWS), or condoned a type of violence (DVS, SVS). The “advanced” TFAS category means that the respondent answered “yes, always” the behaviour is violence or “strongly disagreed” with problematic attitudes for at least 75% of items, and answered the remaining items “yes, usually” or “somewhat disagree”. See  Technical report,  Chapter T13 for further details (Coumarelos et al., 2023).

For all NCAS scales, 2013 marked a turning point for understanding and rejection of violence against women and gender inequality. There was minimal change between 2009 and 2013, but significant changes between 2013 and 2021 on all NCAS scales. In addition, there were significant improvements since 2017 for understanding of violence against women (UVAWS), rejection of gender inequality (AGIS) and rejection of sexual violence (SVS). While causation cannot be inferred from these results, it is notable that these shifts occurred after the first National Plan was released in 2010 and the first woman prime minister held office between 2010 and 2013 (COAG, 2010a, 2010b; National Archives of Australia, 2022).

Attitudes towards violence against women (AVAWS) and attitudes towards domestic violence in particular (DVS) showed slower change over time, with no improvement in 2021 compared to 2017 despite improvement compared to earlier years. Nonetheless, the population’s understanding of violence and their attitudes to both gender inequality and violence against women (according to all scales) were at a comparable level in 2021. However, there is considerable room to further enhance “advanced” understanding and attitudes across the Australian population, as fewer than half of all respondents demonstrated “advanced” understanding of violence against women and “advanced” rejection of gender inequality and violence against women.

The results suggest that continued, cohesive effort nationally is required at all levels of the social ecology to disrupt misconceptions and problematic attitudes that reflect broader norms, practices, systems and structures that are embedded throughout our society and facilitate and maintain violence against women (COAG, 2010b, 2022). Efforts need to include primary prevention and early intervention strategies because problematic attitudes are slow and difficult to shift. Violence against women needs to be recognised as a community-wide social problem that requires community-wide responsibility (see Chapter 10 for more details).

Understanding of violence against women can influence both attitudes towards violence against women and prosocial behaviours to intervene when witnessing abuse or violence (Webster et al., 2018).

A strong understanding of violence against women, together with knowledge of the support and legal services available to victims and survivors, also facilitates reporting, help-seeking and recovery for victims and survivors (Gadd et al., 2003; Gracia et al., 2020; Harmer & Lewis, 2022; Paul et al., 2014). The NCAS measures Australians’ understanding of violence against women, including domestic violence between partners, sexual violence and technology-facilitated abuse, via the Understanding of Violence against Women Scale (UVAWS).

Findings: Understanding of Violence against Women Scale (UVAWS)

• Australians’ understanding of violence against women has significantly improved over time (Section 3.1).
• Women were significantly more likely than men to have “advanced” understanding of violence against women. Non-binary respondents had similar levels of understanding as women.
• Most respondents recognised that domestic violence and violence against women can manifest as a range of violent, abusive and controlling behaviours. However, respondents were more adept at identifying these behaviours than they were at understanding the gendered nature of domestic violence (Sections 4.1 and 4.3).
• Respondents’ understanding of violence was significantly but not strongly related to their demographic characteristics, suggesting that other factors are important in shaping understanding of violence. There is room for improvement in understanding of violence against women across the Australian community (Section 4.4).

Higher scores on the UVAWS and its subscales indicate higher understanding of violence. Figure 4-1 shows understanding in 2021 by gender. In 2021, compared to men, women had significantly higher understanding of violence overall (UVAWS) and higher recognition of both violence against women (Recognise VAW Subscale) and domestic violence (Recognise DV Subscale). Non-binary respondents had similar mean scores to women (Figure 4-1).

The UVAWS comprises three psychometrically validated subscales, each measuring a different conceptual aspect of understanding of violence against women:

• The  Recognise VAW Subscale  comprises four items that ask whether problematic behaviours are a form of violence against women on a four-point scale: “yes, always”, “yes, usually”, “yes, sometimes” and “no”.
• The  Recognise DV Subscale  comprises 12 items that ask whether problematic behaviours are a form of domestic violence on a four-point scale: “yes, always”, “yes, usually”, “yes, sometimes”, “no”.
• The  Understand Gendered DV Subscale  comprises three items that examine understanding of the gendered nature of domestic violence by asking about who is more likely to perpetrate and experience fear and harm from domestic violence: “men”, “women”, or “both equally”.

Figure 4-1: Understanding of different aspects of violence against women (UVAWS and subscales) by gender, 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted.

* Statistically significant difference compared to men on the UVAWS or the subscale indicated.

~ Asked of one quarter of the sample. Results for non-binary respondents are not reported for this subscale due to insufficient numbers.

The four items in the Recognise VAW Subscale of the UVAWS examine understanding that certain behaviours are forms of violence against women. One item is about in-person stalking and three items are about technology-facilitated abuse.

Most respondents recognised these behaviours as “always” or “usually”   forms of violence against women (80–89%; Figure 4-2). Although there is room to improve recognition of all these behaviours, in-person stalking was more often recognised as “always” a form of violence against women (V4; 78%) than the three forms of technology-facilitated abuse (V5, V6, V7; 68%). A sizeable minority of respondents thought that the technology-facilitated abuse behaviours are not, or are only sometimes, violence against women (V5, V6, V7; 15–18%).

Nonetheless, there was a significant improvement in recognition of violence against women in 2021 compared to previous NCAS waves, based on the Recognise VAW Subscale overall and items V4 and V5 (Figure 4-2).

Figure 4-2: Recognising violence against women (UVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:   N  = 19,100. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 or exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “yes” the behaviour is violence against women either “always” or “usually”.

a  New item in 2021. Thus, change over time could not be examined.

* Significantly higher understanding in 2021 than 2017.

The 12 items in the Recognise DV Subscale of the UVAWS examine the recognition of domestic violence between intimate partners, including recognition of both physical forms of violence and non-physical forms of domestic violence such as elements of coercive control.

In 2021, most respondents identified physical harm or threats of physical harm as “always” forms of violence (D2, D1, D12; 81–92%; Figure 4-3). However, fewer respondents recognised emotional abuse (D3); coercive controlling behaviours that target an aspect of the partner’s identity, beliefs or experience (D11, D7, D10); and financial abuse (D5) as “always” domestic violence (66–67%).

There was a significant improvement in recognition of domestic violence behaviours in 2021 compared to previous NCAS waves based on the Recognise DV Subscale overall. However, only two of the six items included in both 2017 and 2021 showed significant improvement over this period (D5, D6; Figure 4-3).

Figure 4-3: Recognising domestic violence (UVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:   N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “yes” the behaviour is violence against women either “always” or “usually”.

ns  No significant difference between 2021 and 2017.

~ Asked of one quarter of the sample.

The three items in the Understand Gendered DV Subscale of the UVAWS examine understanding of the gendered nature of domestic violence whereby men are more likely to commit domestic violence and women are more likely to experience domestic violence.

In 2021, a substantial proportion of respondents incorrectly believed that women and men are equally likely to commit domestic violence (D13; 41%) and equally likely to suffer physical harm (D14; 21%) and fear (D15; 28%) as a result of domestic violence (Figures 4-4 and 4-5).

There was significantly lower understanding of the gendered nature of domestic violence in 2021 compared to 2009 and 2013. However, there was no further significant decline in this understanding between 2017 and 2021 based on the two items that were included in both 2017 and 2021 (D13, D14; Figure 4-4).

Figure 4-4: Understanding the gendered nature of domestic violence perpetration (UVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 4,777. “Men” is the correct answer according to empirical evidence from police and court data (Hulme et al., 2019). Asked of one quarter of the sample in 2021.

ns  No significant difference between 2017 and 2021.

Figure 4-5: Understanding the gendered nature of domestic violence impacts (UVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 4,777. “Women” is the correct answer according to empirical evidence from the Personal Safety Survey (PSS; ABS, 2017). Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 due to rounding. Asked of one quarter of the sample in 2021.

a  Revised item in 2021. Thus, change over time could not be examined.

Efforts to improve community understanding of violence against women are aided by information about the factors that are associated with an individual’s understanding. Based on multiple regression analysis, demographic factors explained 7 per cent of the difference in people’s understanding of violence against women. Gender was the most important demographic predictor and explained 2 per cent of the variance (see Chapter 9 for more details). Thus, most of the difference in respondents’ understanding of violence against women (93%) cannot be explained by their demographic characteristics alone, suggesting other factors are also important in predicting or shaping understanding.

Gender inequality remains a pervasive issue in Australia and addressing gender inequality is critical if we are to end violence against women  (AIHW, 2016; COAG, 2010b, 2022; Our Watch, 2021; Riach et al., 2018; WGEA, 2022).

“Reduction of attitudes that are associated with gender inequality” is a key indicator for preventing violence according to the National Plan 2022–2032 (COAG, 2022, p. 30). The NCAS measures Australians’ attitudes towards gender inequality via the Attitudes towards Gender Inequality Scale (AGIS).

Attitudes towards Gender Inequality Scale (AGIS)

• Australians’ attitudinal rejection of gender inequality continues to improve significantly but slowly over time (Section 3.1). Non-binary respondents and women were significantly more likely than men to have “advanced” attitudinal rejection of gender inequality in 2021.
• While most respondents held attitudes that reject gender inequality, a minority condoned certain attitudes that reinforce rigid gender roles in specific areas, undermine women’s leadership, limit women’s personal autonomy, normalise sexism and deny that gender inequality is a problem (Sections 5.1 to 5.5).
• Respondents’ attitudes towards gender inequality were significantly but not strongly related to their level of understanding of violence against women and their demographic characteristics, suggesting other factors are also important in shaping attitudes towards gender inequality. There is room to improve attitudes towards gender inequality across the Australian community (Section 5.6).

Higher mean scores on the AGIS and its subscales indicate higher rejection of the problematic attitudes towards gender inequality. In 2021, compared to men, women demonstrated significantly higher rejection of gender inequality overall (AGIS) and of the aspects of gender inequality measured by all five AGIS subscales: that is, higher rejection of attitudes that reinforce rigid gender roles, undermine leadership, limit autonomy, normalise sexism and deny inequality (Figure 5-1). Non-binary respondents demonstrated significantly higher rejection of gender inequality overall (AGIS) compared to both men and women. Non-binary respondents also demonstrated significantly higher rejection of the aspects of gender inequality measured by four of the five AGIS subscales, showing higher rejection on:

• the Reinforce Gender Roles, Undermine Leadership and Deny Inequality Subscales compared to men
• the Normalise Sexism Subscale compared to both men and women (Figure 5-1).

The AGIS comprises five psychometrically validated subscales, each measuring a different conceptual aspect of attitudes towards gender inequality, and asking respondents to agree or disagree with statements on a five-point scale: “Strongly agree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Neither agree or disagree”, “Somewhat disagree”, “Strongly disagree”:

• The  Reinforce Gender Roles Subscale  comprises five statements that reinforce traditional, rigid gender roles and expectations.
• The  Undermine Leadership Subscale  comprises four statements that undermine women’s leadership in work and public life.
• The  Limit Autonomy Subscale  comprises two statements that condone men being in charge in intimate relationships and limit women’s personal autonomy.
• The  Normalise Sexism Subscale  comprises three statements that downplay or normalise sexism.
• The  Deny Inequality Subscale  comprises three statements that deny that gender inequality is experienced by women, suggesting “backlash” or resistance to gender equality.

Figure 5-1: Rejection of different aspects of gender inequality (AGIS and subscales) by gender, 2021

Note:   N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted.

* Statistically significant difference compared to men on the AGIS or subscale indicated in 2021.

*1 Statistically significant difference compared to men and women on the AGIS or subscale indicated in 2021.

The Reinforce Gender Roles Subscale of the AGIS includes five items examining attitudes to traditional, rigid and heteronormative gender roles and expectations. Disagreement with an item indicates rejection of attitudes that support rigid gender roles and stereotypes (Figure 5-2).

In 2021, most respondents “strongly disagreed” with attitudes that chastise men for working in stereotypically “feminine” industries and for expressing emotion (G7, G8; 78–80%). However, fewer respondents “strongly disagreed” with expectations that women should not initiate sex when a couple starts dating (G15; 59%).

There was a significant improvement in the rejection of rigid gender roles in 2021 compared to previous NCAS waves based on the Reinforce Gender Roles Subscale overall. However, there was no significant improvement for any of the individual items in this subscale between 2017 and 2021 (Figure 5-2).

Figure 5-2: Reinforcing rigid gender roles (AGIS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree”.

ns  No significant difference between 2017 and 2021.

^ Asked of half the sample.

The Undermine Leadership Subscale of the AGIS includes four items relating to attitudes towards women in work and leadership.

In 2021, most respondents “strongly disagreed” with attitudes that undermine women’s leadership and decision-making abilities, including attitudes that women are less capable of thinking logically than men (G11; 83%). However, fewer respondents “strongly disagreed” that men generally make better bosses (G5) and political leaders (G4) than women (65–68%; Figure 5-3).

There was no significant improvement between 2017 and 2021 for the Undermine Leadership Subscale overall, and none of the individual items showed improvement since 2017 (Figure 5-3). These findings indicate that the Australian population’s fairly high level of rejection of attitudes that undermine women’s leadership evidenced in 2021 was similar to that demonstrated in 2017.

Figure 5-3: Undermining women’s leadership in public life (AGIS subscale items), 2021

^ Asked of half of the sample.

The Limit Autonomy Subscale of the AGIS includes two items that examine attitudes to men being in charge or taking control in their intimate relationships with women (Figure 5-4).

In 2021, most respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed with the normative statement that men  should  be in charge of relationships (G12; 87%). However, fewer respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that women prefer men to take charge in relationships (G13; 74%).

Scores on the Limit Autonomy Subscale improved significantly in 2021 compared to previous NCAS waves. While both subscale items showed a significant increase between 2013 and 2021 in the rejection of attitudes that limit women’s personal autonomy in relationships, there was no significant improvement in these attitudes between 2017 and 2021 (Figure 5-4).

Figure 5-4: Limiting women’s personal autonomy in relationships (AGIS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100.

The Normalise Sexism Subscale of the AGIS includes three items describing attitudes that downplay or normalise sexism in specific social contexts (Figure 5-5).

In 2021, most respondents strongly disagreed that jokes about violence against women are acceptable (G17; 93%). However, fewer respondents strongly disagreed that sexist jokes are acceptable (G16; 57%) and that workplace discrimination against women is not a problem (G10; 66%).

There was a significant increase in the rejection of attitudes that normalise sexism in 2021 compared to previous NCAS waves based on the Normalise Sexism Subscale overall. However, only one of the three items showed significant improvement between 2017 and 2021 (G16; Figure 5-5).

Figure 5-5: Normalising sexism (AGIS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree”.

The Deny Inequality Subscale of the AGIS comprises three items describing attitudes that deny gender inequality experiences through backlash.

In 2021, a substantial proportion of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed that many women mistakenly interpret innocent remarks as sexist (G2; 41%), that women exaggerate the unequal treatment of women in Australia (G1; 35%), and that women do not fully appreciate what men do for them (G3; 30%; Figure 5-6). These results indicate considerable support for backlash attitudes within the Australian community.

There was a significant improvement in attitudes which deny gender equality experiences in 2021 compared to 2017, based on the Deny Inequality Subscale overall. However, only one of the three items showed significant improvement between 2017 and 2021 (G2; Figure 5-6).

Figure 5-6: Denying gender inequality experiences (AGIS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree”.

Based on multiple regression analysis, demographic factors and understanding of violence against women each explained almost one fifth (18%; 19%) of the difference in people’s attitudes towards gender inequality. Gender was the most important demographic predictor and explained 5 per cent of the variance (see Chapter 9 for more details). Thus, most of the difference in respondents’ attitudes towards gender inequality cannot be explained based only on their demographic characteristics and understanding of violence, suggesting other factors are also important in predicting or shaping these attitudes.

The AVAWS measures Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women and provides a means of monitoring changes over time in community attitudes that reject violence.

Reduction of attitudes that are associated with violence against women” is cited in the National Plan 2022–2032 as a key (primary) prevention indicator (COAG, 2022, p. 30).

Attitudes towards Violence against Women Scale (AVAWS)

• Australians mostly hold attitudes that reject violence against women and this rejection has significantly improved since 2013. However, there was no significant improvement in overall attitudes towards violence against women between 2017 and 2021, largely reflecting a plateauing of attitudinal rejection of domestic violence despite an improvement in attitudinal rejection of sexual violence since 2017 (Section 3.1).
• Non-binary respondents and women were significantly more likely than men to have “advanced” attitudinal rejection of violence against women.
• A minority of respondents endorsed attitudes that condone violence against women, including attitudes that minimise the seriousness of violence and shift blame to victims and survivors, attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence, and attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent (Sections 6.1 to 6.3).
• Respondents’ attitudes towards violence against women were significantly and closely related to their attitudes towards gender inequality, and significantly, but less strongly, related to their level of understanding of violence against women and their demographic characteristics (Section 6.4). There is room to further improve attitudes towards violence against women across the Australian community (Section 6.4).

The AVAWS comprises three psychometrically validated subscales, each measuring a different conceptual aspect of attitudes towards violence against women. Respondents were asked whether they agree or disagree with attitudes that support violence on a five-point scale: “Strongly agree”, “Somewhat agree”, “Neither agree or disagree”, “Somewhat disagree”, “Strongly disagree”:

• The  Minimise Violence Subscale  comprises 15 statements that minimise the seriousness of violence against women and shift blame from perpetrators to victims and survivors.
• The  Mistrust Women Subscale  comprises 13 statements that mistrust women’s reports of violence.
• The  Objectify Women Subscale  comprises 15 statements that objectify women or disregard the need to gain women’s consent.

Higher mean scores on the AVAWS and its subscales indicate higher rejection of problematic attitudes towards violence against women. In 2021, compared to men, women demonstrated significantly higher rejection of violence against women overall (AVAWS) and significantly higher rejection of the attitudes measured by two of the three AVAWS subscales: attitudes that minimise violence and attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence. Non-binary respondents demonstrated significantly higher rejection of violence against women overall (AVAWS) compared to men. Non-binary respondents also demonstrated significantly higher rejection of violence against women on two of the three AVAWS subscales, showing higher rejection of:

• attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence, compared to men
• attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent, compared to both men and women (Figure 6-1).

Figure 6-1: Rejection of different aspects of violence against women (AVAWS and subscales) by gender, 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100.

* Statistically significant difference compared to men on the AVAWS or subscale indicated in 2021.

*1 Statistically significant difference compared to men and women on the AVAWS or subscale indicated in 2021.

The Minimise Violence Subscale of the AVAWS comprises 15 items examining the attitudinal concept of minimising violence against women and shifting blame from the perpetrator to the victim and survivor. This subscale consists almost entirely of items about domestic violence (12 items), but also includes two items about sexual violence and one item about violence against women more generally.

In 2021, most respondents disagreed, either strongly or somewhat, with attitudes that minimise violence and shift blame from perpetrators to victims and survivors (74-97%; Figure 6-2). Nonetheless, the results suggest that further positive shifts could be made in some of these attitudes that minimise violence, particularly attitudes that position violence as simply a reaction to day-to-day stress (D17; 74%) and attitudes that women cause their own victimisation by making their partner angry (D25; 78%).

There was no significant improvement in the rejection of minimising attitudes in 2021 compared to 2017. However, there were significant improvements in the Minimise Violence Subscale mean score in 2021 compared to 2009 and 2013. Similarly, while there was no significant improvement in any of the subscale items between 2017 and 2021 (Figure 6-2), four of these items improved significantly in 2021 compared to either 2013, 2009 or both (D24, S9, D18, D19).

Figure 6-2: Minimising violence against women and shifting blame (AVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 or exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding.

The Mistrust Women Subscale of the AVAWS comprises 13 items focusing on the attitudinal concept of mistrusting women’s reports of violence victimisation (Figure 6-3). This subscale comprises eight items about sexual violence, four about domestic violence and one about violence against women more generally.

In 2021, with the exception of one item (D23; 47%), the majority of respondents disagreed, either somewhat or strongly, with attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence (57–93%). Levels of disagreement were highest for attitudes that women’s claims of violence should not be taken seriously (S2, S22, D27; 88–93%) and attitudes that women who delay reporting are lying (S10, S25; 90%). Nonetheless, considerable proportions of respondents (23–37%) strongly or somewhat agreed that women lie about domestic violence to gain an advantage in a custody battle (D23); women lie about sexual assault to “get back at men” (S23) or due to regretting consensual sex (S24); and women exaggerate the extent of men’s violence (V3). These findings indicate that much work is still needed to challenge deep-seated mistrusting attitudes that women have malicious agendas and ulterior motives when disclosing their experiences of violence.

Consistent with the significant increase in overall rejection of attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence between 2017 and 2021 according to the Mistrust Subscale, two Mistrust items also showed significant improvement over this period (D23, S24; Figure 6-3).

Figure 6-3: Mistrusting women’s reports of violence (AVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note :  N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 or exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Significant differences over time are based on the percentage of respondents who answered “strongly disagree” or “somewhat disagree”.

a  New item in 2021. Thus, change over time could not be examined.

The Objectify Women Subscale of the AVAWS comprises 15 items, including 11 standalone items (Figure 6-4) and four items concerning two scenarios about sexual consent (Figure 6-5 and 6-6). All the items and scenarios in this subscale examine sexual violence, except for one item about domestic violence.

In 2021, most respondents either strongly or somewhat disagreed (69–92%) with each of the 11 standalone items in the Objectify Women Subscale. In particular, the highest level of rejection was for the items relating to rape or forced sexual touching, with around 9 in 10 respondents strongly or somewhat disagreeing with these attitudes (S21, S17, S7, S20, S4). However, a minority of respondents strongly or somewhat agreed with attitudes that reduce women to sexual objects (S3, S11; 13%) or show an indifference to gaining active consent (S6, S8; 21–25%).

In addition to the standalone items, the Objectify Women Subscale also included two scenarios about sexual consent, one about a married couple and the other about a couple who had just met at a party. The overwhelming majority of respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that the man in each scenario was justified in forcing sex when he had initiated intimacy (94% for the married scenario; 96% for the acquaintance scenario). However, for both scenarios, fewer respondents strongly or somewhat disagreed that forced sex was justified when the woman had initiated intimacy (83% for the married scenario; 88% for the acquaintance scenario).

There was a significant improvement in the overall rejection of attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent between 2017 and 2021 based on the Objectify Women Subscale. However, only three standalone items significantly improved in this period (S11, S7, S6; Figure 6-4). There was no significant improvement in the two scenarios about sexual consent.

Figure 6-4: Objectifying women and disregarding consent (AVAWS subscale items), 2021

Note:   N  = 19,100 unless otherwise noted. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 or exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding.

*  Significantly higher understanding in 2021 than 2017.

~  Asked of one quarter of the sample.

^  Asked of half the sample.

Figure 6-5: Sexual consent scenario (AVAWS Objectify Women Subscale items), married couple variation, 2021

Note:   N  = 4,640. Percentages in the figure do not always add to 100 or exactly correspond to percentages in the text due to rounding. Asked of one quarter of the sample in 2021.

Figure 6-6: Sexual consent scenario (AVAWS Objectify Women Subscale items), acquaintance variation, 2021

Note:  N  = 4,661. Asked of one quarter of the sample in 2021.

Based on multiple regression analysis, attitudes towards gender inequality explained the largest portion (37%) of the difference in people’s attitudes to violence against women; demographic factors explained 20 per cent; and understanding of violence against women explained 13 per cent. These findings confirm the important relationship between attitudes towards gender inequality and attitudes towards violence against women, and suggest that these attitudes need to be tackled together. The Deny Inequality Subscale of the AGIS was the most important subscale predictor and age was the most important demographic predictor (see Chapter 9 for more details). Thus, shifting attitudes that deny gender inequality experiences may be an important component of initiatives that aim to improve rejection of violence against women by increasing rejection of gender inequality.

Specific types of violence against women

Despite some improvements over time, myths, misconceptions and harmful stereotypes regarding different types of violence are still evident among a minority of Australians, as follows:

• domestic violence:  misconceptions that perpetration can be justified, it is easy to leave violent relationships and domestic violence should be handled within the family (Section 7.1)
• sexual assault:  hostile stereotypes of women as vengeful and untrustworthy, heteronormative stereotypes that privilege men’s entitlement to sex, and rape myths that sexual assault is primarily committed by strangers and that “genuine” victims report their assault immediately and have evidence of physical injury (Section 7.2)
• sexual harassment:  misconceptions that sexual harassment is “flattering” and not serious (Section 7.3)
• technology-facilitated abuse:  misconceptions that technology-facilitated abuse is not serious and is not a criminal offence (Section 7.4)
• stalking:  misconceptions that persistent attention or actions by a person that intend to maintain contact with and exercise power or control over another person are harmless or simply indicative of care and concern (Section 7.5)

Rejection of sexual violence was significantly higher in 2021 than in 2017. Rejection of domestic violence was significantly higher in 2021 than in 2009 and 2013 but plateaued between 2017 and 2021. In 2021, domestic violence, sexual violence and technology-facilitated abuse were rejected by most respondents and to a similar degree. However, various myths and misconceptions about each type of violence measured by the NCAS were evident in a minority of respondents, as outlined below.

In this report, domestic violence refers to violence within current or past intimate partner relationships, which can cause physical, sexual or psychological harm. Domestic violence can include physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and financial abuse, and often occurs as a pattern of behaviour involving coercive control.

A minority of respondents endorsed myths or misconceptions about domestic violence that excuse or minimise this violence. For example, a minority of respondents agreed with:

• misconceptions that perpetrators must have a defensible reason for their violent behaviour,  including that the victim provoked the violence (19%) or that the violence is a normal reaction to day-to-day stress (23%)
• misconceptions that it is easy to leave violent relationships  and that victims who stay are partly responsible for the abuse continuing (10–25%),   demonstrating a lack of understanding of the barriers to leaving, including financial barriers, emotional dependence and fear of reprisals
• misconceptions that domestic violence is a private or family matter  and that victims should manage this violence without outside assistance (2–12%).

Concerningly, two in five respondents indicated that they would not know where to go if they needed outside support for someone experiencing domestic violence.

Sexual assault is a form of sexual violence where sexual activity occurs without the consent of both parties, including where consent is not freely given or obtained or is withdrawn, or a person is unable to consent due to their age or other factors (Attorney-General’s Department, 2022). Sexual assault occurs any time a person is forced, coerced or manipulated into any sexual activity, including coercing a person to engage in sexualised touching, kissing, rape and pornography.

A minority of respondents supported myths about sexual assault and about victims of sexual assault or drew on hostile stereotypes of women. For example, some respondents endorsed:

• hostile gendered stereotypes of women as malicious, vengeful and untrustworthy,  agreeing that it’s common for sexual assault allegations to be used as a way of “getting back at men” (34%) or because women regret a consensual sexual encounter (24%)
• problematic heterosexual sex scripts,  which are socially constructed frameworks for sexual behaviour that privilege men’s entitlement to sex, positioning men as the active initiators of sex and women as the “gatekeepers” who must resist men’s advances. These attitudes rationalise men’s aggressive sexual behaviour and disregard the need to gain consent due to the perception that it is biologically difficult for men to regulate their sexual behaviour, because once aroused, they “may not realise” a woman does not want to have sex (25%). These attitudes also create a double standard whereby a victim who was affected by alcohol or drugs is blamed for the sexual assault (6–10%), while a perpetrator who was affected by alcohol or drugs is excused (6%)
• the rape myth that sexual assault is primarily committed by strangers  (18%), in contradiction to the evidence
• myths regarding “genuine” sexual assault victims,  such as erroneous assumptions that real victims report their sexual assaults immediately (7%) and have evidence of physical injuries (5%).

Sexual harassment is a form of sexual violence characterised by unwelcome sexual advances, sexualised comments, intrusive sexualised questions, requests for sexual favours or other unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature which makes a person feel offended, humiliated or intimidated ( Sex Discrimination Act 1984  [Cth]). Sexual harassment can include, but is not limited to, staring or leering; indecent texts, emails or posts; indecent exposure; inappropriate comments; non-consensual sharing of intimate images; and unwanted touching.

A minority of respondents supported myths that sexual harassment is flattering or benign. For example, a minority of respondents agreed with:

• attitudes that shift blame to women for sexual harassment,  agreeing that a woman is partly responsible if she gives her partner a naked picture of herself and he then shares it without her consent (21%) and that it’s understandable that men touch women without permission because some women are so sexual in public (10%)
• attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent,  such as agreeing that catcalls (13%) and being persistently pursued (13%) without consent is flattering for women
• attitudes that minimise the seriousness of sexual harassment or mistrust women,  such as agreeing that women who are sexually harassed should not be believed if they delay reporting (7%) or that they should handle harassment without outside assistance (5%).

Technology-facilitated abuse is an umbrella term used to refer to forms of abuse where technology is the conduit or means of enacting or exercising abuse. Examples of technology-facilitated abuse include harassment, stalking, impersonation and threats via technology, as well as image-based abuse and other forms of abuse online (eSafety, 2022; Powell & Henry, 2019).

Most respondents (89%) were aware that it is a criminal offence to post or share a sexual picture of an ex-partner on social media without their consent. However, the seriousness and psychological impact of technology-facilitated abuse, including online stalking, is not appreciated by some Australians. For example, a minority of respondents:

• minimised the seriousness of technology-facilitated abuse,  agreeing that consent could be disregarded in some circumstances, such as when a woman sends an intimate image to her partner and he shares it without her consent (21%)
• did not recognise some forms of technology-facilitated abuse,  such as sending an unwanted sexual picture (9%), repeatedly tracking a woman electronically without her consent (7%) and targeting women on social media (6%).

Stalking is a form of violence that can occur in person or via the use of technology. It involves a pattern of repeated behaviour with the intent to maintain contact with, or exercise power and control over, another person. Examples of stalking behaviours include tracking or following someone (in person or online) and loitering.

Most respondents recognised technology-facilitated and in-person stalking as violence always or usually (83–89%). However, a minority did not recognise this behaviour as violence against women or domestic violence (4–7%).

A bystander is somebody who observes, but is not directly involved in, a harmful or potentially harmful event and could assist or intervene (Webster et al., 2018).

Prosocial bystander actions can include confronting the perpetrator’s unacceptable, gendered and violence-condoning attitudes and behaviour as well as supporting the victim and survivor.

Findings: Bystander response

Prosocial bystander responses depended on:

• the type of abusive or disrespectful behaviour (Section 8.2)
• the presence of a power differential between the bystander and the perpetrator (Section 8.2)
• the gender composition of respondents’ networks (Section 8.2)
• anticipated peer support (Section 8.3)
• barriers to intervention (Section 8.4)
• attitudes and understanding (Section 8.5)
• other characteristics of the bystander (Section 8.5).

The bystander role is important in the prevention of violence against women. Prosocial bystanders can call out unacceptable behaviour, place social sanctions on perpetrators that discourage future perpetration, help victims and survivors to feel supported and heard, and in some situations, prevent violence from escalating or even occurring (Bell & Flood, 2020; Orchowski et al., 2018; Palmer et al., 2020). The way communities respond to everyday microaggressions is also important because while not all disrespect results in violence, all violence against women begins with disrespect (Australian Government, 2022).

Respondents were asked about three bystander scenarios and whether they would be bothered by the scenario, how they would react, reasons for not acting and the responses they anticipated from their peers if they did respond:

• Friend sexist joke (B1):  Imagine you are talking with some close friends at work, and a male work friend tells a sexist joke about women.
• Boss sexist joke (B2):  Now, instead, imagine it was your male boss rather than a work friend who told the sexist joke.
• Friend verbal abuse (B3):  Imagine you are out with some friends and a male friend is insulting or verbally abusing a woman he is in a relationship with.

Most respondents said they would be bothered by each scenario. However, there were significant differences by scenario type:

• Virtually all respondents said they would be bothered by the verbal abuse scenario (99%; B3).
• Significantly fewer respondents said they would be bothered by the sexist joke scenarios (69–86%; B1, B2). It is particularly notable that almost a third (31%) of respondents said they would  not  be bothered by a close work friend telling a sexist joke (B1), whereas only 14 per cent would not be bothered by a boss telling a sexist joke (B2).

Figure 8-1 shows whether those who said they would be bothered by the scenarios would intervene by showing their disapproval (immediately in public or later in private) or would not intervene. Most respondents who reported that they would be bothered also said that they would show their disapproval either publicly or privately (73–94%). The likelihood of showing disapproval when bothered varied by the context, depending on:

• the type of abusive behaviour,  with significantly more respondents saying they would show disapproval in response to verbal abuse (94%) than to a sexist joke (73–90%)
• the presence of a power differential  between the bystander and the perpetrator, with significantly fewer respondents saying they would show public disapproval if a boss (35%) rather than a friend (58–64%) told a sexist joke. [4]

Intention to intervene as a prosocial bystander also varied by  the gender composition of respondents’ networks.  Respondents who had men-dominated occupations and social networks were significantly less likely to report prosocial bystander responses (feeling bothered by the scenario and intention to intervene), particularly if they were men.

Figure 8-1: Bystander intention to intervene if bothered by scenario, 2021

For the friend sexist joke (B1) and friend verbal abuse (B3) scenarios, respondents who said they would show their disapproval (either in public or in private) were asked to imagine how their friends would react if the respondent showed their disapproval of the disrespectful behaviour then and there in public. Most respondents expected that if they showed their disapproval in these two scenarios, their peers would support them, either then and there in public or later in private (80% for B1; 76% for B3). Only a minority of respondents expected that showing their disapproval would result in peer criticism or peer silence (14% for B1; 16% for B3).

The likelihood of showing disapproval when bothered varied by whether respondents anticipated peer support. For both friend scenarios, respondents were significantly more likely to say they would show disapproval publicly if they thought their friends would support them publicly (75–77%) than if they anticipated any other type of peer reaction (47–64%). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that a substantial percentage of respondents in both scenarios who anticipated criticism from their peers for speaking out still said they would disapprove publicly (47–60%).

In 2021, items were added to the NCAS to investigate why some people do not intervene when witnessing abuse or disrespect. Respondents who were bothered by a scenario but would not intervene (passive bystanders) were asked about their reasons for not speaking up, with the most common reasons across all scenarios being:

• “It might have negative consequences” (75–91%)
• “You wouldn’t feel comfortable speaking up” (75–79%)
• “You wouldn’t know what to say” (60–62%)
• “It wouldn’t make any difference (34–52%)
• “It’s not your business” (30–58%).

There were some scenario-based differences in the reasons for being a passive bystander and saying nothing:

• Passive bystanders were significantly more likely to think it was not their business when a friend was verbally abusing their partner (B3; 58%) than when their boss told a sexist joke (B2; 30%). This finding is consistent with the result that more than 1 in 10 respondents perceived domestic violence as “a private matter that should be handled in the family” (D16; Chapter 7). Thus, further education is needed to raise awareness that domestic violence is a crime, dispel the dangerous myth that it should be handled within the family, and provide bystanders with the skills and resources they need to intervene effectively without risking the safety of the victim and survivor or themselves (ACON, 2018; Cares et al., 2014; Hooker et al., 2021; Katz et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2020).
• Passive bystanders were significantly more likely to anticipate negative consequences of intervening in the boss than the friend sexist joke scenario (91% for B2 versus 75% for B1) and significantly more likely to think that intervening would make no difference in the boss sexist joke scenario than the friend verbal abuse scenario (52% for B2 versus 34% for B3). These results further underscore the importance of ensuring there are safe and effective mechanisms for preventing and responding to sexist behaviour and related behaviours such as sexual harassment in the workplace.

According to multiple logistic regression analyses, respondents were significantly more likely to be bothered by sexist jokes if they had stronger rejection of gender inequality and if they recognised that violence against women is a problem in Australia. However, demographics, understanding of violence and attitudes together explained only 20 per cent or less of the differences in respondents’ likelihood of being bothered by the sexist joke scenarios.

Demographics, understanding and attitudes together explained even less (no more than 5%) of the differences in respondents’ likelihood of intervening when witnessing sexist jokes or verbal abuse.

Thus, other factors are needed to explain most of the variance in respondents’ likelihood of being bothered (80–81%) or intervening (95–98%) when witnessing abuse or disrespect.

The demographic group, population or culture surrounding an individual may shape or influence their attitudes, beliefs and behaviour , including their attitudes towards social issues (Brennan et al., 2015; Broćić & Miles, 2021; Olson, 2019; Pavlíček et al., 2021; Roberts, 2019).

Findings: People and contexts

There were some differences in understanding, attitudes or bystander responses according to demographic characteristics. For example, some significant differences indicated more “advanced” understanding, attitudes or bystander responses among:

• women and non-binary people compared to men (Section 9.1)
• lesbian; gay; bisexual or pansexual; and asexual, queer or sexuality-diverse respondents compared to heterosexuals (Section 9.3)
• Australian-born respondents compared to those born in a non-main English–speaking country (N-MESC; Section 9.5)
• university graduates compared to people with lower levels of education (Section 9.6)
• employed people compared to other people (Section 9.7)
• people living in areas with the highest socioeconomic status compared to those in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status (Section 9.8).

Demographic differences in understanding, attitudes and likely bystander responses can inform the barriers and facilitators of violence prevention initiatives with different demographic groups. Importantly, however, demographic factors explained only a fraction of the picture, suggesting there is room for improvement across the population.

This chapter presents results on differences between demographic groups in understanding and attitudes towards violence, attitudes towards gender equality and intended bystander responses when witnessing abuse or disrespect towards women. Implications for these findings are discussed in Chapter 10. Based on multiple regression analysis, Table 9-1 shows which demographic groups had significantly higher (>), significantly lower (<) or not significantly different (ns) results compared to the reference group. When interpreting these findings, keep in mind that demographic factors explained only a relatively small portion of the picture.

Demographic factor – Gender (1.8–5.1%) Men REF

Multiple linear regression: significantly higher (>) or lower (<) understanding or rejection compared to REF a

Multiple logistic regression: significantly higher (>) or lower (<) likelihood compared to REF b

Demographic factor – Age (in years) (0.4–3.8%) All ages on average REF

Demographic factor – Sexuality (0.5–1.9%) Heterosexual REF

Sexuality was excluded from bystander regression models due to small numbers in some groups.

Demographic factor – Country of birth and length of time in Australia c (0.4–2.9%) Born in Australia REF

Demographic factor – English proficiency d (1.6–3.0%) English at home REF

Demographic factor – Formal education (2.3–2.9%) University or higher REF

Demographic factor – Main labour activity e (0.3–2.0%) Employed REF

Demographic factor – Socioeconomic status of area f (0.7–1.1%) 5 – Highest status REF

Demographic factor – Socioeconomic status of area f (0.7–1.1%) Mainly/totally men (men-dominated) REF

Gender composition of social network was excluded from the scale regression as it was quarter-sampled.

Note:   N  = 18,876 (UVAWS Model 1), 18,869 (AGIS Model 1), 18,876 (AVAWS Model 1), 4,317 (B1 – Bothered Model 1), 4,327 (B2 – Bothered Model 1), 2,991 (B1 – Intervene Model 1), 3,781 (B2 – Intervene Model 1) and 4,327 (B3 – Intervene Model 1). Disability and remoteness are not included in this table because they were not significant independent predictors in any of these regression models.

REF The reference group for this demographic factor. All other groups for the demographic factor were compared to the REF. The REF was chosen based on considerations of statistical power (i.e. the group with the most respondents) and ease of interpretation (e.g. comparing the group with the highest formal education to each other group).

ns No significant difference between this demographic group and the REF.

– This input variable did not improve model fit so was excluded from the final version of the model.

a Based on the multiple linear regression results, this demographic group had significantly higher (>), significantly lower (<) or not significantly different (ns) understanding or rejection of problematic attitudes compared with the REF.

b Based on the multiple logistic regression results, this demographic group had significantly higher (>), significantly lower (<) or not significantly different (ns) likelihood of being bothered or intervening compared with the REF.

c “MESC” refers to people born in a main English–speaking overseas country (ABS classification), and “N-MESC” refers to people born in a non-main English–speaking country. The number of years refers to the number of years since the respondent moved to Australia. Due to small numbers, the three MESC groups were combined into a single MESC in the bystander regressions.

d “LOTE” refers to language other than English spoken at home. “Good English” refers to good or very good self-reported English proficiency and “poor English” refers to no English or poor self-reported English proficiency. Due to small numbers, the two LOTE groups were combined into a single LOTE group in the bystander regressions.

e Due to small numbers, “home duties” and “volunteering” were included in the “other” group in the bystander regressions.

f “Socioeconomic status of area” refers to an ABS measure of socioeconomic conditions in geographic areas in terms of people’s access to material and social resources, and their opportunity to participate in society (SEIFA quintiles).

Although men and women showed similar rates of improvement over time, women maintained more “advanced” understanding, attitudes and prosocial bystander responses regarding violence against women and gender equality. Women were significantly more likely than men to demonstrate stronger:

• understanding of violence against women,  including understanding of the diverse behaviours constituting domestic violence and violence against women more broadly
• rejection of gender inequality,  including rejection of attitudes that reinforce rigid gender roles, undermine women’s leadership, limit women’s autonomy in relationships, normalise sexism and deny gender inequality experiences
• rejection of violence against women,  including rejection of domestic violence, sexual violence, attitudes that minimise violence against women and shift blame, and attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence
• prosocial bystander responses,  being more likely to be bothered by sexist jokes and to show public disapproval if a work friend told a sexist joke.

Non-binary respondents were significantly more likely to demonstrate stronger:

• understanding of violence against women  compared to men
• rejection of gender inequality  compared to men and women, including higher rejection of attitudes that reinforce rigid gender roles, undermine women’s leadership and deny gender inequality experiences (compared to men and women), and higher rejection of attitudes that normalise sexism (compared to men)
• rejection of domestic violence compared to men and stronger rejection of sexual violence compared to men and women,  as well as stronger rejection of attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent (compared to men and women), and attitudes that mistrust women’s reports of violence (compared to men).

There were no significant differences in understanding of violence against women by age. However, there were a few significant differences in attitudes and bystander responses for younger and older respondents, compared to all ages on average:

• Younger respondents (25 to 34 years) demonstrated significantly higher rejection of violence against women,  especially sexual violence.
• Younger respondents (16 to 34 years) were significantly less likely to intervene  if a boss told a sexist joke, despite 16- to 24-year-olds being more likely to be bothered by sexist jokes.
• Older respondents (75 years or over) demonstrated significantly lower rejection of gender inequality and violence against women,  including domestic and sexual violence.
• Older respondents (65 to 74 years) were significantly more likely to intervene  if a boss told a sexist joke.

Heterosexual respondents were significantly less likely to demonstrate stronger:

• understanding of violence against women  compared to lesbians
• rejection of gender inequality  compared to lesbian; gay; bisexual or pansexual; and asexual, queer or sexuality-diverse respondents
• rejection of violence against women  compared to lesbian; gay; bisexual or pansexual; and asexual, queer or sexuality-diverse respondents, including:
• rejection of domestic and sexual violence  compared to lesbian; gay; bisexual or pansexual; and asexual, queer or sexuality-diverse respondents
• rejection of technology-facilitated abuse  compared to lesbians and bisexual or pansexual respondents.

Disability status was not a significant predictor of understanding, attitudes or bystander responses after other demographic factors had been adjusted for in the regression analyses.

While respondents born in an N-MESC and respondents who spoke a language other than English (LOTE) at home were less likely to display “advanced” understanding and attitudes, this effect declined with increasing English proficiency and increased time living in Australia.

Respondents born in N-MESCs were significantly less likely than Australian-born respondents to demonstrate strong:

• understanding of violence against women  and  rejection of gender inequality,  but only if they had lived in Australia for less than six years
• rejection of violence against women,  including domestic and sexual violence, but only if they had lived in Australia less than 11 years.

Respondents who spoke a LOTE at home were significantly less likely than Australian-born respondents to demonstrate strong:

• understanding of violence against women
• rejection of gender inequality
• rejection of violence against women,  including domestic, sexual and technology-facilitated violence, especially if they had poor English proficiency.

There were no significant differences in understanding of violence against women by formal education. However, respondents with university qualifications were significantly more likely than those with lower levels of education to demonstrate stronger:

• rejection of violence against women,  particularly sexual violence
• prosocial bystander responses,  being more likely to be bothered by sexist jokes (although they were no more likely to intervene).

Employed adults were significantly more likely to demonstrate stronger:

• rejection of violence against women,  including sexual violence and domestic violence, compared to unemployed respondents
• intention to intervene as a prosocial bystander  if a friend were verbally abusing their partner, compared to retirees and those unable to work.

However, students and respondents who were unable to work were more likely than employed respondents to be bothered by a friend telling a sexist joke.

Respondents living in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status were significantly less likely to reject gender inequality and violence against women, when compared to respondents living in the highest socioeconomic status areas.

There were no significant differences in understanding, attitudes or bystander responses based on whether respondents lived in major cities, regional or remote areas, after other demographic factors had been adjusted for in the regression analyses.

Women-dominated contexts were linked to higher rejection of gender inequality and violence against women, whereas men-dominated contexts were linked to greater tolerance of sexist jokes:

• Significantly higher rejection of gender inequality  was demonstrated by men in women-dominated occupations and respondents with women-dominated social networks.
• Significantly higher rejection of violence against women,  particularly sexual violence, was demonstrated by women with women-dominated social networks.
• Respondents with women-dominated social networks were more likely to be bothered by sexist jokes, while men in men-dominated occupations were less likely to be bothered.
• Respondents with gender-balanced social networks would be more likely than men with men-dominated social networks to intervene when witnessing a sexist joke.

Family, domestic and sexual violence are major health and welfare issues that transcend all backgrounds in Australia  (ABS, 2017, 2021a, 2021b).

The National Plan 2010–2022 was born out of a recognition that all states and territories have a duty to work together to create “communities … safe and free from violence” (COAG, 2010b, p. 14).

The implications of the 2021 NCAS findings are largely consistent with the objectives outlined in the National Plan 2022–2032, which emphasise the importance of initiatives across the domains of (primary) prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing (COAG, 2022; Section 1.3). Many of the NCAS findings are particularly relevant to primary prevention and early intervention, but some also highlight opportunities for initiatives to support response, and recovery and healing.

Important policy and legislative work towards meeting the objectives of the National Plan 2022–2032 has already begun, including:

• the development of a set of national principles to address coercive control (Meeting of Attorneys-General, 2022)
• implementation of Respect@Work Report recommendations, including amendments to the  Sex Discrimination Act  1984 (Cth) requiring that employers take steps to address sexual harassment in workplaces (Attorney-General’s Department, n.d.)
• working towards the development of Australia’s first National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality (Office for Women, 2023), which will be complemented and supported by the work of the recently established Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce (Office for Women, 2022)
• the funding and delivery of Respectful Relationships Education programs in Australian schools (S. Clark, 2022).

As described by the socioecological model, such policy and legislative changes must be complemented by efforts across all levels of the social ecology to achieve the goal of ending violence against women.

As discussed in Section 1.2, this model describes violence against women as a complex social problem driven by multiple interacting factors at all levels within society, including individual understanding, attitudes and values, as well as practices, processes, systems and structures at the organisational, community, institutional and societal levels (Heise, 1998; Our Watch, 2021).

The findings of the 2021 NCAS demonstrate that positive changes to community understanding and attitudes regarding gender inequality and violence against women are slowly occurring, suggesting movement towards achieving the aspiration of an Australian community that is safe and free from violence. However, more effort is still required to intervene where harmful individual and social norms prevail. Specifically, it is still necessary to continue to challenge biases, myths and misconceptions regarding violence against women and gender inequality held by individuals. In addition, broader practices, processes, systems and structures across society that maintain gender and other inequalities and inequities need to be addressed, and must also be supported by government, including via legal reform and response and recovery services for victims and survivors, such as health, legal and financial support services and safe housing.

This section summarises the key findings from the 2021 NCAS and discusses their implications for prevention initiatives across the social ecology and consistent with the National Plan 2022–2032 (COAG, 2022). The main report presents further details on the implications of the 2021 NCAS.

Key findings

Positive shifts in understanding of violence and attitudes towards gender inequality and violence against women are occurring slowly.

• All NCAS scales showed improvement in 2021 compared to 2013.
• Since 2017, understanding of violence (UVAWS), rejection of gender inequality (AGIS), and rejection of sexual violence (SVS) have improved, but attitudes towards violence against women overall (AVAWS) and domestic violence (DVS) have plateaued.
• Understanding that violence against women is a problem in Australia is higher than understanding that this violence also occurs in one’s local area.

Further positive change is needed to achieve more progressive understanding and attitudes across the Australian population, as fewer than half of the respondents demonstrated “advanced” understanding of violence against women; “advanced” rejection of gender inequality; and “advanced” rejection of violence against women, domestic violence and sexual violence.

Implications

• Employ a cohesive, national solution at every level of the social ecology to shift violence-supporting norms and end violence against women.
• Employ primary prevention and early intervention strategies, as problematic attitudes are difficult to shift.

“Personalise” violence against women as a community-wide social problem that requires community-wide responsibility and action.

• Most Australians have a good overall understanding of violence against women, and this understanding has slowly but consistently improved over successive NCAS waves.
• Most Australians recognise that domestic violence, and violence against women more broadly, can manifest as a diverse range of physical and non-physical behaviours, but there is less recognition of non-physical forms of abuse and violence and coercive control than physical forms of violence.
• There was also less recognition of forms of domestic violence involving exploitation of aspects of a partner’s identity or experience, such as chronic health conditions, sexual diversity, religion and migrant status.
• There is also room to improve understanding of the gendered nature of domestic violence as a phenomenon that is mainly perpetrated by men against women.
• Demographic factors explain only a very small amount of the differences in people’s understanding of violence against women, suggesting other factors are also important in predicting or shaping individual understanding.
• Develop consistent definitions of domestic violence and coercive control across legislative and policy settings Australia-wide and ensure these consistent definitions are adopted across education and prevention initiatives.
• Increase recognition of the many forms of domestic violence and violence against women within the community and justice and service systems, including non-physical forms of violence against women such as financial abuse, emotional abuse, coercive control and technology-facilitated abuse.
• Increase awareness of the ways intersecting inequalities exacerbate risk of violence for marginalised groups and produce unique forms of domestic violence and violence against women.
• Support industries, businesses, service providers and governments to create policies to identify, appropriately respond to and prevent violence against women within their spaces.
• Increase awareness of the gendered nature of domestic violence by addressing “gender-ignoring” bias and “backlash”. For example, prevention initiatives should:
• Address any scepticism about the gendered nature of domestic violence and abuse by highlighting established and unequivocal statistics in awareness, education and training initiatives.
• Improve understanding of structural inequalities, including gender inequality, which drive the conditions for men’s predominant use of violence, abuse and control.
• Adopt gender-transformative strategies to change problematic gendered norms, including harmful masculinity norms that entail dominant, aggressive, controlling and hypersexual behaviour.
• Address “backlash” or resistance towards gender equality movements as they may underlie gender-ignoring biases related to domestic violence.
• Employ respectful relationships education to emphasise both the importance of equal power balance in respectful relationships and the barriers to this in the current patriarchal and heteronormative society, as well as to transform problematic gendered expectations.
• Address barriers to understanding violence against women across the population and at all levels of the social ecology as people are embedded within, and influenced by, the social ecology at every level.
• Most Australians reject attitudes that condone or reinforce gender inequality, and these attitudes continue to steadily improve, albeit slowly, over time, but some problematic attitudes persist in a minority of the population.
• A sizeable minority of Australians still endorse certain aspects of gender inequality, for example through attitudes that deny women’s gender inequality experiences, limit women’s personal autonomy in relationships, undermine women’s leadership in public life, normalise sexism, and reinforce rigid gender roles for men and women.
• Demographic factors and understanding of violence against women (UVAWS) explain only some of the differences in people’s attitudes towards gender equality, suggesting other factors are also important in predicting or shaping these attitudes.
• Improve attitudes and behaviours that support gender equality. Thus, initiatives should:
• Address “backlash”, or resistance towards gender equality movements wherever it occurs across the community, including resistance based on misperceptions that gender equality may result in men losing their social standing.
• Promote gender equality in private and public life. Institutions, organisations and community groups should take responsibility for ensuring that both formal and informal processes provide equal opportunities and identify and remove systemic obstacles to gender equality.
• Address the normalisation of sexism and tolerance of sexist microaggressions across social settings, including among peer groups, in organisations and in the media. It is important to challenge both benevolent and hostile sexist attitudes, as both are damaging to the achievement of gender equality and the eradication of violence against women.
• Challenge rigid or harmful gender roles, stereotypes and expectations that diminish, denigrate or objectify women; that limit their opportunities in public or private life; and that legitimise men’s dominant position in the family, in intimate relationships and in workplaces.
• Ensure all strategies are gender-transformative in their design by encouraging individuals to actively challenge and reject limiting gender norms and inequities.
• Engage with all demographic groups across the population to improve attitudes and behaviours that support gender equality:
• Incorporate violence against women knowledge components within programs that aim to promote gender equality.
• Challenge attitudes condoning gender inequality through points of influence, such as peer and social groups.
• Engage school-aged children in respectful relationships education.
• Use strengths-based approaches to effectively engage with men and gender-transformative approaches to improve their attitudes to gender equality.

Most Australians reject attitudes that condone violence against women, but improvement in these attitudes has been slower over time. These attitudes have significantly improved since 2013. However, they have plateaued since 2017, largely reflecting a plateau in attitudinal rejection of domestic violence, as there was a significant improvement in attitudinal rejection of sexual violence since 2017.

• There are opportunities to improve certain attitudes towards violence against women, including attitudes that:
• mistrust women who report being victimised
• objectify women and disregard their consent
• minimise violence against women and shift blame from perpetrators to victims and survivors.

Australians’ attitudes towards violence against women are strongly associated with their attitudes towards gender inequality, suggesting they need to be tackled together. Attitudes towards violence against women are also significantly but less strongly related to demographic factors and understanding of violence.

• Raise awareness that problematic attitudes towards violence against women normalise and perpetuate this violence. Interventions should:
• Challenge attitudes and norms across the social ecology that mistrust victims and survivors or excuse, minimise, condone or normalise violence against women.
• Raise awareness of and challenge the objectification of women and its consequences.
• Challenge attitudes that mistrust women and minimise violence and reflect discrimination based on intersecting inequalities.
• Foster a culture of trust and support in women’s reports of violence victimisation across the social ecology to facilitate reporting. For example:
• Promote appropriate reporting of perpetrators and violence against women in the media in adherence with the national guidelines set out by Our Watch (2019a).
• Raise awareness of the barriers to women reporting violence, including attitudes that condone violence throughout society and structural and systemic inadequacies such as inadequate trauma-informed training of police, judiciary officers and jurors, which can lead to adverse outcomes for victims and survivors.
• Affirm the seriousness of violence against women and place responsibility on the perpetrator.
• Address legislative, policy and service barriers to reporting of violence and recovery of victims and survivors. For example:
• Upskill practitioners, police, justice officers and support services with best-practice training in victim- and survivor-centred, trauma-informed and culturally safe practices to facilitate appropriate response to disclosures of victimisation across the service and justice systems.
• Reform legislation and legal processes to facilitate reporting and access to justice.
• Provide coordinated legal, health and other support services to facilitate early reporting of violence and the recovery of victims and survivors.
• Ensure institutions, including schools and universities, industries and businesses, have policies and processes that prioritise victims and survivors by treating violence and abuse seriously, and taking action to support victims’ and survivors’ needs and prevent further perpetration of violence.
• Strengthen attitudes supporting gender equality and improve understanding of violence against women to improve attitudes towards violence against women across the community.
• Improve attitudes towards violence against women across the population by targeting individual- and relationship-level factors within the social ecology. For example, initiatives should:
• Address beliefs about the acceptability of violence in relationships through primary prevention and early intervention
• Address attitudes among perpetrators that minimise violence, shift blame to victims and survivors, and objectify women.

The Domestic Violence Scale (DVS), Sexual Assault Scale (SAS), and Sexual Harassment Scale (SHS) consist of items drawn entirely from the AVAWS that examine attitudes towards these types of violence. Thus, see also “Attitudes towards Violence against Women” findings and implications regarding addressing attitudes that minimise violence and shift blame, mistrust women’s reports of violence and objectify women, and disregard the need for consent.

Domestic violence

• Although attitudinal rejection of domestic violence (DVS) was higher in 2021 than in 2009 and 2013, there was no further significant improvement since 2017.
• Misconceptions about domestic violence are evident among a minority of the community, including misperceptions that perpetrators must have a defensible reason for their violent behaviour, that it is easy for victims and survivors to leave violent relationships, and that domestic violence is a private or family matter to be managed without outside assistance.
• Many Australians would not know how to access domestic violence services if they needed outside support for someone experiencing domestic violence.
• Challenge myths and misconceptions about domestic violence. For example, strategies could:
• Assist perpetrators to accept responsibility for their violent behaviour.
• Challenge community perceptions that domestic violence is a reasonable reaction to daily stressors.
• Promote accurate media reporting of domestic violence, including via use of evidence-based language, framing violent incidents in line with the broad social issue of violence against women and providing contact details of support agencies.
• Raise awareness of, and address, the barriers that many women face to leaving violent relationships.
• “Personalise” domestic violence as a community-wide problem that requires community-wide responsibility.
• Raise public awareness of where and how to seek help for domestic violence and ensure the service system is suitably funded and easily accessible to meet the demand for assistance.

Sexual assault

Problematic myths and stereotypes about sexual assault, sexual consent and victims and survivors are evident among a sizable minority of respondents including:

• hostile gendered stereotypes of women as malicious, vengeful and untrustworthy
• problematic heterosexual sex scripts that privilege men’s entitlement to sex, positioning men as the active initiators of sex and women as the “gatekeepers” who must resist men’s advances
• the rape myth that sexual assault is primarily committed by strangers
• myths regarding “genuine” sexual assault victims.
• Develop nationally consistent definitions of sexual assault and consent.
• Increase community understanding of affirmative, ongoing consent and address barriers to the success of affirmative consent initiatives.
• Shift problematic heterosexual sex scripts that privilege men’s entitlement to sex by positioning men as dominant and aggressive sexual initiators and women as submissive sexual gatekeepers, as these place the responsibility of voicing consent and preventing sexual violence on women while absolving men from responsibility.
• Challenge the objectification of women and the normalisation of sexual violence in media, video games and pornography.
• Correct myths and misconceptions about the nature of sexual assault and “genuine” victims within the community and justice and service systems. For example:
• Correct hostile gendered stereotypes that women are malicious, vindictive and untrustworthy and have ulterior motives for lying about sexual assault.
• Address persistent myths that false allegations are common by highlighting the very high level of underreporting of sexual assault to police as well as the very small percentage of false allegations.
• Increase recognition of the high prevalence of sexual assault and the diversity of sexual assault experiences.
• Challenge rigid norms and expectations about who is likely to be a victim of sexual assault and how a victim and survivor “should” respond.
• Remove barriers to reporting of sexual assault, including by ensuring the availability of trauma-informed and victim- and survivor-centred reporting processes that make the process easier, safer and more accessible for all victims and survivors irrespective of gender, ethnicity, disability, sexuality, age and class background.

Sexual harassment

Misunderstanding of sexual harassment as flattering, benign or warranted persists among some Australians. For example, a minority of respondents agreed with:

• attitudes that shift blame to women for sexual harassment
• attitudes that objectify women and disregard consent
• attitudes that minimise the seriousness of sexual harassment or mistrust women.

Implications [5]

• Challenge public misconceptions that sexual harassment, whether in person or technology-facilitated, is not serious. For example:
• Raise awareness of the different forms of sexual harassment that can occur online and in person.
• Raise awareness that sexual harassment can result in serious financial, social, emotional, physical and psychological harms and can attract legal penalties.
• Employ community education campaigns to identify and “call out” the everyday microaggressions that define sexual harassment in workplaces, social settings, and other online and offline contexts.
• Educate the community about the need for consent and shift problematic heterosexual sex scripts that privilege men’s entitlement to sex.
• Ensure all spaces, including workplaces, educational institutions and online forums, are safe and respectful for all people through legislation and policy frameworks.

Technology-facilitated abuse

A minority of Australians do not appreciate the gravity and impacts of technology-facilitated abuse. For example, a minority of respondents:

• minimised the seriousness of technology-facilitated abuse agreeing that consent could be disregarded in some circumstances
• did not recognise some forms of technology-facilitated abuse, such as repeatedly tracking a partner on electronic devices without consent and targeting women on social media.
• Increase understanding of the different forms of technology-facilitated abuse and its serious impact. Initiatives should:
• Raise awareness of the range of behaviours that constitute technology-facilitated abuse and that technology-facilitated abuse is common.
• Raise awareness of the legal penalties and powers of the eSafety Commissioner regarding technology-facilitated abuse and the civil and criminal penalties associated with some of these abusive behaviours.
• Increase digital literacy to facilitate recognition and reporting of technology-facilitated abuse and to enhance skills for accessing support.
• Prevent technology-facilitated abuse through safety-by-design principles in all online products and services and through responsive legislative frameworks that address emerging forms of this abuse.

Most, but not all, Australians recognise technology-facilitated and in-person stalking behaviour as violence against women or domestic violence.

• Increase understanding of the different forms of stalking, both in person and online, and its serious impacts. Initiatives should:
• Raise awareness of the range of stalking behaviours to assist people to identify stalking behaviours and take protective actions before they escalate. Also raise awareness of the often gendered nature of stalking and that it can occur both within and outside a domestic or family violence context, among heterosexual people and in the LGBTQ+ community.
• Raise awareness of the serious physical and mental health impacts of stalking behaviours.
• Raise awareness of and challenge stalking behaviours via peer networks.
• Support victims and survivors of stalking to seek assistance and increase perpetrator accountability.

Most Australians would intend to intervene prosocially in response to witnessing abuse and disrespect. However, prosocial bystander intervention is context-dependent and can vary according to the type of disrespectful or abusive behaviour, power differentials, anticipated peer support or criticism, and the gender composition of respondents’ occupation and social networks.

Prosocial bystander responses also depend somewhat on attitudes towards gender inequality and acknowledging violence is a problem.

However, multiple barriers can impede prosocial bystander intervention, including personal, context-specific and structural barriers.

Implications [6]

• Boost bystander intention and competence to intervene prosocially when witnessing violence or disrespect against women in a range of contexts. For example, initiatives should:
• Increase bystander knowledge, confidence and skills for accurately identifying disrespect and violence and engaging in prosocial bystander behaviours and for supporting other people’s prosocial bystander behaviour in a safe and effective way via training and awareness campaigns.
• Challenge the normalisation of everyday hostile sexism, such as the tendency for people, especially men, to perceive sexist and racist jokes as harmless.
• Encourage bystanders to identify with positive group norms that reject violence against women and endorse prosocial bystander intervention.
• Remove barriers and negative consequences to speaking out, including barriers related to power imbalances in workplaces, and correct misperceptions, especially among men, that it is “not their business” to speak out.
• Increase community attitudes that reject gender inequality and acknowledge violence against women as a problem.
• Promote the advantages of intervening when witnessing disrespect or abuse and increase knowledge of safe ways to intervene.
• Employ context-specific bystander initiatives tailored according to the power dynamics, social pressures, barriers and safety considerations that may be relevant in different situations.
• Educate leaders and managers to develop and maintain respectful and gender-equitable work environments and to remove barriers to calling out abuse.

Understanding, attitudes and bystander responses are related to multiple, complex factors, including demographic factors. However, demographics explain only a fraction of the picture, indicating that there is room for improvement across all demographic groups in the population.

There is a persistent gender gap between men and women in understanding of violence against women, rejection of gender inequality, rejection of violence against women and prosocial bystander responses, with men lagging behind.

Non-binary respondents were consistently more likely to have “advanced” understanding and rejection of problematic attitudes compared to men and sometimes also compared to women.

• Engage men as advocates and agents for violence prevention via gender-transformative, strengths-based and intersectional approaches that transform harmful understandings of masculinity, build on men’s existing strengths and recognise that violence is experienced differently depending on the combination of intersecting oppressions that are relevant to an individual.
• Change attitudes that mistrust women and minimise violence, particularly among men.
• Improve attitudes to gender inequality, including via addressing backlash, particularly among men.
• Build attitude change into men’s behaviour change programs and encourage early engagement with attitude and behaviour change programs, particularly for men at higher risk for offending.
• Encourage and remove barriers to prosocial bystander intervention among men by fostering masculinity norms that reject violence, including via men’s peer groups.
• Enlist non-binary people as informed and empathetic allies in violence prevention.

Age was not a consistent predictor of understanding, attitudes and prosocial bystander responses, although some age differences were found.

Younger respondents (25 to 34 years) demonstrated significantly higher rejection of violence against women, especially sexual violence, while older respondents (75 years or over) demonstrated significantly lower rejection of gender inequality and violence against women, including domestic and sexual violence.

Older respondents were also significantly more likely and younger respondents were significantly less likely to intervene if a boss told a sexist joke.

• Address barriers faced by particular age groups when delivering education and violence prevention initiatives.
• Facilitate prosocial bystander behaviour by young people in the workplace. For example, it is important to:
• Address the power differential in employment by ensuring safe protocols that encourage, support and respond appropriately to speaking out against disrespect and sexism in the workplace.
• Upskill young people to provide them with the confidence and skills needed to act prosocially and embed training within a broader workplace and educational culture that supports prosocial behaviours in response to sexism and harassment.
• Facilitate increased rejection of gender inequality and violence against women among older people. Interventions with older people should:
• Consider generational or cohort effects which may have influenced older people’s attitudes.
• Consider use of outreach programs to conduct education and prevention initiatives with older Australians.

Heterosexual people were consistently less likely to have “advanced” understanding and rejection of problematic attitudes. Heterosexual respondents demonstrated significantly lower understanding of violence against women compared to lesbians, and lower rejection of gender inequality and rejection of violence against women compared to lesbian; gay; bisexual or pansexual; and asexual, queer or sexuality-diverse respondents.

• Foster more inclusive understanding of gender and sexuality. Action could be taken to:
• Use gender-transformative approaches to challenge heteronormative expectations and norms and problematic heterosexual sex scripts.
• Listen and learn from those in LGBTQ+ communities, who may have experience in navigating intimate relationships that do not comply with heteronormative expectations and may be able to provide insight into respectful relationships that are unrestricted by gendered roles.
• Work collaboratively with LGBTQ+ advocates and communities to address underlying drivers of violence.

Country of birth and English proficiency

• People born in a non-main English–speaking country (N-MESC) and people with poor English were less likely to display “advanced” understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women. However, this effect declined with increasing English proficiency and increased time living in Australia.
• Develop culturally and linguistically appropriate education, service and violence prevention initiatives for migrants from N-MESCs. Enhance protective factors through initiatives that:
• provide culturally sensitive education, violence prevention, outreach and support services, including English language training.
• co-design timely support with migrant communities.

Formal education

Higher formal education was consistently associated with more “advanced” attitudes towards gender inequality and violence against women. Respondents with university qualifications were significantly more likely than those with lower education levels to demonstrate stronger rejection of gender inequality, rejection of violence against women, and prosocial bystander responses.

• Use early intervention to improve understanding and attitudes regarding gender inequality and violence against women across the population. For example:
• Provide age-appropriate educational programs early during compulsory schooling and TAFE education.
• Provide young adult education for school leavers.
• Continue and expand campus-based education in universities.
• Employ public service campaigns to reach the broader population outside of educational settings.

Main labour activity

There were only a few significant associations involving main labour activity, generally showing stronger rejection of violence and prosocial bystander intervention by employed people.

Address unemployment stress, including masculine role stress, to reduce risk of violence-supportive attitudes and perpetration of violence. [7]

Socioeconomic status of area

Respondents living in areas with the lowest socioeconomic status were significantly less likely than those living in areas with the highest socioeconomic status to reject gender inequality and violence against women.

• Address barriers to accessing services that help prevent and respond to violence in lower socioeconomic areas by taking the following actions:
• Increase availability and uptake of material and social resources and opportunities helpful in violence prevention in lower socioeconomic areas.
• Increase the availability and visibility of support services, including financial and housing support, in lower socioeconomic areas.

Gender composition of occupation and social contexts

Women-dominated contexts were linked to higher rejection of gender inequality and violence against women whereas men-dominated contexts were linked to greater tolerance of sexist jokes.

• Reduce gender segregation in the Australian workforce by using tools, such as the Gender Strategy Toolkit, to diagnose and address barriers to gender equality in workplaces (WGEA, 2019).
• Challenge microaggressions such as sexist humour in men-dominated contexts.
• Use gender-transformative approaches in men-dominated occupations and community groups. These approaches can be helpful in redefining and validating the many expressions of masculinity that do not require dominance over others.
• Develop workplace protocols and initiatives to facilitate safety and confidence for prosocial bystander intervention.
• Build confidence interacting respectfully with people of all genders.
• Challenge attitudes supporting hegemonic masculinity in men-dominated contexts, which encourage exaggerated stereotypical masculine traits such as aggression and men’s domination.

The NCAS findings provide evidence that  understanding and attitudes regarding violence against women are generally moving towards positive change , although this change is occurring slowly.

The NCAS results identify areas where it would be particularly beneficial to focus prevention efforts to address gaps in understanding of violence against women and to transform more entrenched problematic attitudes towards this violence and gender inequality. The findings point to many opportunities across the primary prevention, early intervention, response, and recovery and healing continuum that can potentially contribute to realising the aspiration of ending violence against women and building a culture that supports safety, respect and equality for all Australians (COAG, 2022).

It is clear that these initiatives must be undertaken across the population and at all levels of society if this aspiration is to be reached. The NCAS is also a useful tool for highlighting areas where further research, evaluation and monitoring could be beneficial. For example, further investigation and analysis could provide deeper knowledge about the factors underlying problematic attitudes, as well as about the barriers and facilitators to improving these attitudes and to breaking down the culture that perpetuates violence against women.

ACON. (2018).  Friends and family toolkit: Recognise, respond, recover.  Say It Out Loud.  https://sayitoutloud.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ACON-DFV-BYSTANDER-INTERVENTION-TOOLKIT.pdf

ACT Government. (2022, May 5).  Clearer and stronger sexual consent laws  [Media release].  https://www.cmtedd.act.gov.au/open_government/inform/act_government_media_releases/rattenbury/2022/clearer-and-stronger-sexual-consent-laws

Adinkrah, M. (2011). Criminalizing rape within marriage: Perspectives of Ghanaian university students.  International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (6), 982–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X10371800

Albarracin, D., & Shavitt, S. (2018). Attitudes and attitude change.  Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 299–327.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011911

Annamma, S. A., Ferri, B. A., & Connor, D. J. (2018). Disability critical race theory: Exploring the intersectional lineage, emergence, and potential futures of DisCrit in education.  Review of Research in Education, 42 (1), 46–71.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18759041

American Psychological Association. (2022). Heteronormativity.  APA Dictionary of Psychology.   https://dictionary.apa.org/heteronormativity

Attorney-General’s Department. (n.d.).  Respect@Work implementation highlights.  Retrieved March 3, 2023, from  https://www.ag.gov.au/rights-and-protections/human-rights-and-anti-discrimination/respect-at-work/respectwork-implementation-highlights

Attorney-General’s Department. (2022).  The Meeting of Attorneys-General work plan to strengthen criminal justice responses to sexual assault.  Australian Government.  https://www.ag.gov.au/system/files/2022-08/MAG-work-plan-strengthen-criminal-justice-responses-to-sexual-assault-2022-2027.pdf

Australian Government. (2022).  National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality.  Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.  https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/national-strategy-achieve-gender-equality

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2018).  Research summary: The impacts of domestic and family violence on children  (2nd ed.) (ANROWS Insights, 11/2018).  https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/research-summary-the-impacts-of-domestic-and-family-violence-on-children/

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety. (2021).  Defining and responding to coercive control: Policy brief  (ANROWS Insights, 01/2021).  https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/defining-and-responding-to-coercive-control/

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017).  Personal safety, Australia: Statistics for family, domestic, sexual violence, physical assault, partner emotional abuse, child abuse, sexual harassment, stalking and safety.  https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/personal-safety-australia/latest-release

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2018).  Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS): 1270.0.55.005 – Volume 5 – Remoteness structure, July 2016.  https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/1270.0.55.005

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021a).  Recorded crime – Victims: National statistics about victims of a range of personal, household and family and domestic violence offences as recorded by police.  https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/crime-and-justice/recorded-crime-victims/latest-release#key-statistics

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2021b).  Sexual violence – Victimisation.   https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/sexual-violence-victimisation

Australian Government. (2022).  Bring up respect.  https://www.respect.gov.au/#:~:text=Not%20all%20disrespect%20towards%20women,stop%20it%20at%20the%20start.&text=From%20a%20young%20age%2C%20boys,that%20make%20disrespectful%20behavior%20acceptable

Australian Human Rights Commission. (2018).  Face the facts: Gender equality 2018.   https://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/2018_Face_the_Facts_Gender_Equality.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2016).  Domestic & family violence and homelessness 2011–12 to 2013–14.  http://www.aihw.gov.au/homelessness/domestic-violence-and-homelessness/

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2018).  Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia 2018.   https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/table-of-contents

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019a).  Australian Burden of Disease Study: Impact and causes of illness and death in Australia 2015  (Australian Burden of Disease series no. 19).  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/burden-of-disease/burden-disease-study-illness-death-2015/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019b).  Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia: Continuing the national story.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-australia-2019/contents/summary

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2021).  Family, domestic and sexual violence service responses in the time of COVID-19.   https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2021-12/apo-nid315733.pdf

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022a).  Hospitalisations for family and domestic violence.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-data/contents/what-services-or-supports-do-those-who-have-experienced-family-domestic-and-sexual-violence-use/hospitalisations-for-family-and-domestic-violence

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2022b).  Family, domestic and sexual violence data in Australia.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-data/contents/how-is-family-domestic-and-sexual-violence-experienced/sexual-violence

Banyard, V., Edwards, K., & Rizzo, A. (2019). “What would the neighbors do?” Measuring sexual and domestic violence prevention social norms among youth and adults.  Journal of Community Psychology, 47 (8), 1817–1833.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22201

Bartels, L. (2010).  Emerging issues in domestic/family violence research (Research in practice no. 10).  Australian Institute of Criminology.  https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rip/rip10

Baugher, A. R., & Gazmararian, J. A. (2015). Masculine gender role stress and violence: A literature review and future directions.  Aggression and Violent Behavior , 24,  107–112.

Bell, K., & Flood, M. (2020). Change among the change agents? Men’s experiences of engaging in anti-violence advocacy as White Ribbon Australia Ambassadors. In R. Luyt & K. Starck (Eds.),  Masculine power and gender equality: Masculinities as change agents  (pp. 55–80). Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-35162-5_4

Bell, K. M., & Higgins, L. (2015). The impact of childhood emotional abuse and experiential avoidance on maladaptive problem solving and intimate partner violence.  Behavioral Sciences, 5 (2), 154–175.  https://doi.org/10.3390/bs5020154

Boserup, B., McKenney, M., & Elkbuli, A. (2020). Alarming trends in US domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic.  American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 38 (12), 2753–2755.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7195322/

Boxall, H., & Morgan, A. (2021).  Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of women in Australia.  ANROWS.  https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/intimate-partner-violence-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-a-survey-of-women-in-australia/

Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct components of attitude.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47 (6), 1191–1205.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191

Brennan, J., Chanfreau, J., Finnegan, J., Griggs, J., Kiss, Z., & Park, A. (2015).  The effect of higher education on graduates’ attitudes: Secondary analysis of the British Social Attitudes Survey.  Department for Business Innovation & Skills.

Broćić, M., & Miles, A. (2021). College and the “culture war”: Assessing higher education’s influence on moral attitudes.  American Sociological Review, 86 (5), 856–895.

Callaghan, J. E. M., Alexander, J. H., Sixsmith, J., & Fellin, L. C. (2018). Beyond “witnessing”: Children’s experiences of coercive control in domestic violence and abuse.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33 (10), 1551–1581.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618946

Callander, D., Wiggins, J., Rosenberg, S., Cornelisse, V. J., Duck-Chong, E., Holt, M., Pony, M., Vlahakis, E., MacGibbon, J., & Cook, T. (2019).  The 2018 Australian Trans and Gender Diverse Sexual Health Survey: Report of findings.  The Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney.  https://kirby.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/kirby/report/ATGD-Sexual-Health-Survey-Report_2018.pdf

Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2015). Barriers to help seeking for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner violence.  Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5),  585–600.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838015585318

Cares, A. C., Moynihan, M. M., & Banyard, V. L. (2014). Taking stock of bystander programmes. In N. Henry & A. Powell (Eds.),  Preventing sexual violence: Interdisciplinary approaches to overcoming a rape culture  (pp. 170–188). Palgrave Macmillan.

Carman, M., Fairchild, J., Parsons, M., Farrugia, C., Power, J., & Bourne, A. (2020).  Pride in prevention: A guide to primary prevention of family violence experienced by LGBTIQ communities . Rainbow Health Australia.  https://rainbowhealthaustralia.org.au/news/launch-pride-in-prevention-evidence-guide

Carman, M., Rosenberg, S., Bourne, A., & Parsons, M. (2021).  Research matters: What does LGBTIQ mean?  Rainbow Health Victoria.  https://www.rainbowhealthvic.org.au/media/pages/research-resources/research-matters-what-does-lgbtiq-mean/4107366852-1605661767/research-matters-what-does-lgbtiq-mean.pdf

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022).  The social-ecological model: A framework for prevention.  https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/about/social-ecologicalmodel.html

Chandra, G., & Erlingsdóttir, I. (2021).  The Routledge handbook of the politics of the #MeToo movement.  Routledge.

Clark, S. (2022).  Funding for schools and student wellbeing.  Parliament of Australia.  https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/BudgetReviewOctober202223/FundingSchoolsStudentWellbeing

Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. (2013).  The role of community patrols in improving safety in Indigenous communities  (Resource sheet 20). Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Australian Institute of Family Studies.  https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/6709c52a-95f0-4592-a1b9-78a429638fb6/14455.pdf.aspx?inline=true

Copp, J. E., Giordano, P. C., Manning, W. D., & Longmore, M. A. (2019). Neighborhood norms, disadvantage, and intimate partner violence perpetration.  Sociological Forum, 34 (3), 594–615.  https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12516

Corboz, J., Flood, M., & Dyson, S. (2016). Challenges of bystander intervention in male-dominated professional sport: Lessons from the Australian Football League.  Violence Against Women, 22 (3), 324–343.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801215602343

Coumarelos, C., Honey, N., Ward, A., Weeks, N., & Minter, K. (2023).  Attitudes matter: The 2021 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS), Technical report.  ANROWS.

Council of Australian Governments. (2010a).  National Implementation Plan for the First Action Plan: Building a strong foundation 2010–2013.  Commonwealth of Australia.  https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/07_2014/first_action_plan_1.pdf

Council of Australian Governments. (2010b).  National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022.  Commonwealth of Australia.  https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2014/national_plan1.pdf

Council of Australian Governments. (2022).  The National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032.  Commonwealth of Australia.  https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/10_2022/national_plan_accessible_version_for_website.pdf

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.  University of Chicago Legal Forum,  Vol. 1989, 1(8), 139–167.  http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8?utm_source=chicagounbound.uchicago.edu%2Fuclf%2Fvol1989%2Fiss1%2F8&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.  Stanford Law Review, 43,  pp. 1241–1299.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039

Cripps, K. (2021). Media constructions of Indigenous women in sexual assault cases: Reflections from Australia and Canada.  Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 33 (3), 1–22.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2020.1867039

Dalton, S. (2020). When staying at home can mean danger.  Concept, 11,  1–3.  http://concept.lib.ed.ac.uk/article/view/4371

Debowska, A., Boduszek, D., Dhingra, K., Kola, S., & Meller-Prunska, A. (2015). The role of psychopathy and exposure to violence in rape myth acceptance.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (15), 2751–2770.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514553635

DeKeseredy, W. S., Hall-Sanchez, A., & Nolan, J. (2018). College campus sexual assault: The contribution of peers’ proabuse informational support and attachments to abusive peers.  Violence Against Women, 24 (8), 922–935.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801217724920

DeKeseredy, W. S., Schwartz, M. D., Kahle, L., & Nolan, J. (2021). Polyvictimization in a college lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer community: The influence of negative peer support.  Violence and Gender, 8 (1), 14–20.  https://doi.org/10.1089/vio.2020.0040

Dembo, R. S., Mitra, M., & McKee, M. (2018). The psychological consequences of violence against people with disabilities.  Disability and Health Journal.   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2018.01.006

Dlamini, N. J. (2021). Gender-based violence, twin pandemic to COVID-19.  Critical Sociology, 47 (4–5), 583–590.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520975465

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993).  The psychology of attitudes.  Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.

Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., Barry, J. E., Moynihan, M. M., Banyard, V. L., Cohn, E. S., Walsh, W. A., & Ward, S. K. (2015). Physical dating violence, sexual violence, and unwanted pursuit victimization: A comparison of incidence rates among sexual-minority and heterosexual college students.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30 (4), 580–600.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514535260

Edwards, K. M., Sylaska, K. M., & Neal, A. M. (2015). Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: A critical review of the literature and agenda for future research.  Psychology of Violence, 5 (2), 112–121.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038656

eSafety Commissioner. (2017).  Image-based abuse national survey: Summary report.   https://www.esafety.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-07/Image-based-abuse-national-survey-summary-report-2017.pdf

eSafety Commissioner. (2022).  Domestic and family violence.  https://www.esafety.gov.au/key-issues/domestic-family-violence

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014).  Violence against women: An EU-wide survey.   https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2014-vaw-survey-main-results-apr14_en.pdf

Femi-Ajao, O., Kendal, S., & Lovell, K. (2020). A qualitative systematic review of published work on disclosure and help-seeking for domestic violence and abuse among women from ethnic minority populations in the UK.  Ethnicity & Health, 25 (5), 732–746.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13557858.2018.1447652

Fiolet, R., Tarzia, L., Owen, R., Eccles, C., Nicholson, K., Owen, M., Fry, S., Knox, J., & Hegarty, K. (2019). Indigenous perspectives on help-seeking for family violence: Voices from an Australian community.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (21-22) .  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519883861

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010).  Predicting and changing behavior : The reasoned action approach.  Psychology Press.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203838020

Flood, M. (2008). Men, sex, and homosociality: How bonds between men shape their sexual relations with women.  Men and Masculinities, 10 (3), 339–359.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X06287761

Flood, M. (2019a).  Engaging men and boys in violence prevention.  Palgrave Macmillan.  https://doi.org/10.13128/ccselap-25826

Flood, M. (2019b). Gender equality: Engaging men in change.  Lancet (British edition), 393 (10189), 2386–2387.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31295-4

Flood, M. (2020).  Masculinities and health: Attitudes towards men and masculinities in Australia.  VicHealth.  https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/-/media/ResearchandEvidence/Current-research/VicHealth-Attitudes-to-men-and-masculinity-report-July-2020•pdf?la=en&hash=CC6F4938563E65E58E6D4D7C573FA8AA13286986

Frawley, P., & Wilson, N. J. (2016). Young people with intellectual disability talking about sexuality education and information.  Sexuality and Disability, 34 (4), 469–484.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-016-9460-x

Gadd, D., Farrall, S., Dallimore, D., & Lombard, N. (2003). Equal victims or the usual suspects? Making sense of domestic abuse against men.  International Review of Victimology, 10 (2), 95–116.  https://doi.org/10.1177/026975800301000201

Gethin, A. (2019). Strengthening laws to protect women from dowry abuse in Australia.  Human Rights Defender, 28 (3), 13–15.  https://doi.org/10.3316/agispt.20200211024507

Ghafournia, N., & Easteal, P. (2018). Are immigrant women visible in Australian domestic violence reports that potentially influence policy?  Laws, 7 (4), 32.  https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/4/32

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women.  Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21 , 119–135.  https://www.academia.edu/download/49013870/Hostile_and_Benevolent_Sexism_Measuring_20160921-3310-1aeejf5.pdf

Gosangi, B., Park, H., Thomas, R., Gujrathi, R., Bay, C. P., Raja, A. S., Seltzer, S. E., Balcom, M. C., McDonald, M. L., Orgill, D. P., Harris, M. B., Boland, G. W., Rexrode, K., & Khurana, B. (2020). Exacerbation of physical intimate partner violence during COVID-19 lockdown.  Radiology, 298 (1), 202866.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020202866

Gracia, E., Lila, M., & Santirso, F. A. (2020). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence against women in the European Union: A systematic review.  European Psychologist, 25 (2), 104–121.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000392

Ha, T., Otten, R., McGill, S., & Dishion, T. J. (2019). The family and peer origins of coercion within adult romantic relationships: A longitudinal multimethod study across relationships contexts.  Developmental Psychology, 55 (1), 207–215.  https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000630

Hamai, T. A., Felitti, V. J., Geffner, R., White, J. W., Hamberger, L. K., Rosenbaum, A., Vaughan-Eden, V., & Vieth, V. (2021). Adverse childhood experiences: Past, present, and future. In: Geffner, R., White, J.W., Hamberger, L.K., Rosenbaum, A., Vaughan-Eden, V., & Vieth, V. I. (Eds.),  Handbook of interpersonal violence and abuse across the lifespan.  Springer, Cham.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89999-2_305

Hardesty, J. L., & Ogolsky, B. G. (2020). A socioecological perspective on intimate partner violence research: A decade in review.  Journal of Marriage and Family, 82 (1), 454–477.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12652

Harmer, E., & Lewis, S. (2022). Disbelief and counter-voices: A thematic analysis of online reader comments about sexual harassment and sexual violence against women.  Information Communication and Society, 25( 2), 199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1770832

Harrington, A. G., Overall, N. C., & Cross, E. J. (2021). Masculine gender role stress, low relationship power, and aggression toward intimate partners.  Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22 (1), 48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000262

Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework.  Violence Against Women, 4 (3), 262–290.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801298004003002

Hillstrom, L. C. (2019).  The #MeToo movement.  ABC-CLIO.

Hooker, L., Ison, J., O’Sullivan, G., Fisher, C., Henry, N., & Forsdike, K. (2021).  Primary prevention of sexual violence and harassment against women and girls: Combining evidence and practice knowledge: Evidence review and data synthesis.  La Trobe University.

Hopper, E. K., Bassuk, E. L., & Olivet, J. (2010). Shelter from the storm: Trauma-informed care in homelessness services settings.  Open Health Services And Policy Journal, 3 (2), 80–100.  https://doi.org/10.2174/1874924001003020080

Horsley, P. (2015).  Family violence and the LGBTI community: Submission to the Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence, Gay and Lesbian Health Victoria  [Submission]. Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health & Society, La Trobe University.

Hulley, J., Bailey, L., Kirkman, G., Gibbs, G., Gomersall, T., Latif, A., & Jones, A. (2021). Intimate partner violence and barriers to help-seeking among Black, Asian, minority ethnic and immigrant women: A qualitative metasynthesis of global research.  Trauma, Violence & Abuse.  Advance online publication.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15248380211050590

Hulme, S., Morgan, A. & Boxall, H. (2019). Domestic violence offenders, prior offending and reoffending in Australia.  Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice  (no. 580). Australian Institute of Criminology.  https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi580

Jackson, C., & Sundaram, V. (2018). “I have a sense that it’s probably quite bad … but because I don’t see it, I don’t know”: Staff perspectives on “lad culture” in higher education.  Gender and Education, 33 (4), 435-450.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2018.1501006

Jackson, S. (2006). Interchanges: Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: The complexity (and limits) of heteronormativity.  Feminist Theory, 7 (1), 105–121.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1464700106061462

Katz, J., Edgington, C., & McCabe, E. (2021). Bystander responses to intimate partner misconduct: Barriers to responding to physical and sexual violations.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (11–12), 6508–6525.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518815141

Kelman, H. C. (2017). Processes of opinion change. In P. Suedfeld & A. Pelinka (Eds.),  Attitude change: The competing views  (pp. 205–233). Routledge.  https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351315364

Kidman, R., & Kohler, H.-P. (2020). Emerging partner violence among young adolescents in a low-income country: Perpetration, victimization and adversity.  PLoS One, 15 (3).  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230085

Kim, J., & Luke, N. (2020). Men’s economic dependency, gender ideology, and stress at midlife.  Journal of Marriage and the Family, 82 (3), 1026–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12615

Kimber, M., Henriksen, C. A., Davidov, D. M., Goldstein, A. L., Pitre, N. Y., Tonmyr, L., & Afifi, T. O. (2015). The association between immigrant generational status, child maltreatment history and intimate partner violence (IPV): Evidence from a nationally representative survey.  Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 50 (7), 1135–1144.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4926312/

Koh, J., Kembhavi-Tam, G., Rose, V., Featherston, R., & Shlonsky, A. (2021).  Rapid evidence review : Violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability.  Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability.  https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2021-08/apo-nid313846.pdf

Kourti, A., Stavridou, A., Panagouli, E., Psaltopoulou, T., Spiliopoulou, C., Tsolia, M., Sergentanis, T. N., & Tsitsika, A. (2021). Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review.  Trauma, Violence, & Abuse.  Online first.  https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211038690

KPMG. (2016).  The cost of violence against women and their children in Australia: Final detailed report . Department of Social Services.  https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/08_2016/the_cost_of_violence_against_women_and_their_children_in_australia_-_summary_report_may_2016.pdf

Kulkarni, S. (2019). Intersectional trauma-informed intimate partner violence (IPV) services: Narrowing the gap between IPV service delivery and survivor needs.  Journal of Family Violence, 34 (1), 55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0001-5

Langton, M., Smith, K., Eastman, T., O’Neill, L., Cheesman, E., & Rose, M. (2020).  Improving family violence legal and support services for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women.  ANROWS.  https://www.anrows.org.au/project/improving-family-violence-legal-and-support-services-for-indigenous-women/

Leen, E., Sorbring, E., Mawer, M., Holdsworth, E., Helsing, B., & Bowen, E. (2012). Prevalence, dynamic risk factors and the efficacy of primary interventions for adolescent dating violence: An international review.  Aggression and Violent Behavior , 18 (1), 159–174.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2012.11.015

LGBTIQ+ Health Australia. (2022, July 29).  LGBTIQ+ health peak body welcomes paid domestic and family violence leave, calls for LGBTIQ+ inclusion in implementation  [Media release] .  https://www.lgbtiqhealth.org.au/lgbtiq_health_peak_body_welcomes_paid_domestic_and_family_violence_leave

Lockhart, L. L., & Danis, F. S. (2010).  Domestic violence: Intersectionality and culturally competent practice.  Columbia University Press.

Lowe, H., Brown, L., Ahmad, A., Daruwalla, N., Gram, L., Osrin, D., Panchal, K., Watson, D., Zimmerman, C., & Mannell, J. (2022). Mechanisms for community prevention of violence against women in low- and middle-income countries: A realist approach to a comparative analysis of qualitative data.  Social Science & Medicine, 305 .  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115064

Lund, E. M. (2020). Interpersonal violence against people with disabilities: Additional concerns and considerations in the COVID-19 pandemic.  Rehabilitation Psychology, 65 (3), 199–205.  http://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000347

Lyneham, S., & Bricknell, S. (2018).  When saying no is not an option: Forced marriage in Australia and New Zeland  (AIC Research report 1). Australian Institute of Criminology.  https://www.aic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/rr11.pdf

Mailhot Amborski, A., Bussières, E.-L., Vaillancourt-Morel, M.-P., & Joyal, C. C. (2021). Sexual violence against persons with disabilities: A meta-analysis.  Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 23 (4), 1330–1343.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838021995975

Manne, K. (2017).  Down girl: The logic of misogyny.  Oxford University Press.

Medley-Rath, S. R. (2007). “Am I still a virgin?”: What counts as sex in 20 years of  Seventeen. Sexuality and Culture, 11 (2), 24–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-007-9002-x

Meeting of Attorneys-General. (2022).  National principles to address coercive control: Consultation draft.  Australian Government.  https://consultations.ag.gov.au/families-and-marriage/coercive-control/user_uploads/coercive-control-national-principles-overview.pdf

Messinger, A. M. (2017).  LGBTQ intimate partner violence: Lessons for policy, practice, and research.  University of California Press.   https://doi.org/10.1525/california/9780520286054.001.0001

Miller-Graff, L. E., Cater, Å. K., Howell, K. H., & Graham-Bermann, S. A. (2016). Parent–child warmth as a potential mediator of childhood exposure to intimate partner violence and positive adulthood functioning.  Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 29 (3), 259–273.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1028030

Morgan, E. M., & Zurbriggen, E. L. (2016). Wanting sex and wanting to wait: Young adults’ accounts of sexual messages from first significant dating partners.  Feminism & Psychology, 17 (4), 515–541.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353507083102

Morgan, K., Buller, A. M., Evans, M., Trevillion, K., Williamson, E., & Malpass, A. (2016). The role of gender, sexuality and context upon help-seeking for intimate partner violence: A synthesis of data across five studies.  Aggression and Violent Behavior , 31,  136–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2016.09.001

Murray, L., Warr, D., Chen, J., Block, K., Murdolo, A., Quiazon, R., Davis, E., & Vaughan, C. (2019). Between “here” and “there”: Family violence against immigrant and refugee women in urban and rural Southern Australia.  Gender, Place & Culture, 26 (1), 91–110.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1553862

Nancarrow, H. (2020).  Making sense of the COVID-19 commentary about domestic and family violence.  Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.

Nancarrow, H., Thomas, K., Ringland, V., & Modini, T. (2020).  Accurately identifying the “person most in need of protection” in domestic and family violence law.  ANROWS.  https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Nancarrow-PMINOP-RR.3.pdf

National Archives of Australia. (2022).  Julia Gillard.  https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/julia-gillard#:~:text=On%2024%20June%202010%2C%20Julia,by%20the%20Parliamentary%20Labor%20Party

National Family and Domestic Violence Bench Book. (2022).  Emotional and psychological abuse.  https://dfvbenchbook.aija.org.au/contents

NSW Government. (2021) . Reform of sexual consent laws: Information about changes to consent laws announced by the NSW Government.   https://dcj.nsw.gov.au/justice/proposed-reform-of-sexual-consent-laws.html

NSW Government Communities and Justice. (2022, June 1).  Affirmative consent becomes law in NSW [Press release].  https://www.dcj.nsw.gov.au/news-and-media/media-releases/2022/affirmative-consent-becomes-law-in-nsw.html#:~:text=%2D%20A%20person%20can’t%20consent,present%20for%20every%20sexual%20act.

Office for Women. (2022).  Women’s Economic Equality Taskforce.  Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.  https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/womens-economic-equality/womens-economic-equality-taskforce

Office for Women. (2023).  National Strategy to Achieve Gender Equality.  Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.  https://www.pmc.gov.au/office-women/national-strategy-achieve-gender-equality

Ogilvie, J., Thomsen, L., Barton, J., Harris, D. A., Rynne, J., & O’Leary, P. (2022).  Adverse childhood experiences among youth who offend: Examining exposure to domestic and family violence for male youth who perpetrate sexual harm and violence.  Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.  https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/bitstream/handle/10072/416351/Ogilvie2765105-Published.pdf?sequence=2

Ogunsiji, O., Wilkes, L., & Chok, H. N. (2018). “You take the private part of her body … you are taking a part of her life”: Voices of circumcised African migrant women on female genital circumcision (FGC) in Australia.  Health Care for Women International, 39 (8), 906–918.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07399332.2018.1443106

Olson, D. V. (2019). The influence of your neighbors’ religions on you, your attitudes and behaviors, and your community.  Sociology of Religion, 80 (2), 147–167.  https://doi.org/10.1093/socrel/srz001

Orchowski, L. M., Edwards, K. M., Hollander, J. A., Banyard, V. L., Senn, C. Y., & Gidycz, C. A. (2018). Integrating sexual assault resistance, bystander, and men’s social norms strategies to prevent sexual violence on college campuses: A call to action.  Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 21 (4), 811–827.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838018789153

Our Watch. (2018a).  Changing the picture: Background paper: Understanding violence against Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women and their children.  https://media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/09/20231756/Changing-the-picture-Part-1-AA.pdf

Our Watch. (2018b).  Changing the picture: A national resource to support the prevention of violence against Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander women and their children.   https://www.ourwatch.org.au/resource/changing-the-picture/

Our Watch. (2019a).  How to report on violence against women and their children.   https://media.ourwatch.org.au/resource/how-to-report-on-violence-against-women-and-their-children-2019-national-edition/

Our Watch. (2019b).  Men in focus: Unpacking masculinities and engaging men in the prevention of violence against women.   https://www.ourwatch.org.au/resource/men-in-focus-unpacking-masculinities-and-engaging-men-in-the-prevention-of-violence-against-women/

Our Watch. (2021).  Change the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women in Australia  (2nd ed.).  https://media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/23131846/Change-the-story-Our-Watch-AA.pdf

Our Watch, Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety, & VicHealth. (2015).  Change the story: A shared framework for the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia.  Our Watch.  https://media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/23131846/Change-the-story-Our-Watch-AA.pdf

Our Watch, & Women with Disabilities Victoria. (2021).  Changing the landscape: A national resource to prevent violence against women and girls with disabilities.  Our Watch.  https://media-cdn.ourwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/02/08100520/Changing-the-landscape.pdf

Ozaki, R., & Otis, M. D. (2017). Gender equality, patriarchal cultural norms, and perpetration of intimate partner violence: Comparison of male university students in Asian and European cultural contexts.  Violence Against Women, 23 (9), 1076–1099.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216654575

Palmer, J. E., McMahon, S., & Fissel, E. (2020). Correlates of incoming male college students’ proclivity to perpetrate sexual assault.  Violence Against Women, 27 (3–4), 507–528.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801220905663

Paul, L. A., Zinzow, H. M., McCauley, J. L., Kilpatrick, D. G., & Resnick, H. S. (2014). Does encouragement by others increase rape reporting? Findings from a national sample of women.  Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38 (2), 222–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313501999

Pavlíček, A., Bobenič Hintošová, A., & Sudzina, F. (2021). Impact of personality traits and demographic factors on risk attitude.  SAGE Open, 11 (4).  https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211066917

Peitzmeier, S. M., Malik, M., Kattari, S. K., Marrow, E., Stephenson, R., Agénor, M., & Reisner, S. L. (2020). Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates.  American Journal of Public Health, 110( 9), e1–e14.  https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2020.305774

Pfitzner, N., Fitz-Gibbon, K., & True, J. (2020).  Responding to the “shadow pandemic”: Practitioner views on the nature of and responses to violence against women in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 restrictions . Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University.  https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2020-06/apo-nid306064.pdf

Pham, J. M. (2016). The limits of heteronormative sexual scripting: College student development of individual sexual scripts and descriptions of lesbian sexual behavior.  Frontiers in Sociology, 1 (7).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2016.00007

Pöllänen, K., de Vries, H., Mathews, C., Schneider, F., & de Vries, P. J. (2018). Beliefs about sexual intimate partner violence perpetration among adolescents in South Africa.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (3–4), NP2056–2078NP.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518756114

Powell, A., Flynn, A., & Hindes, S. (2022).  Technology-facilitated abuse: National survey of Australian adults’ experiences.  ANROWS.  https://www.anrows.org.au/publication/technology-facilitated-abuse-national-survey-of-australian-adults-experiences/

Powell, A., & Henry, N. (2019). Technology-facilitated sexual violence victimization: Results from an online survey of Australian adults.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34 (17), 3637–3665.

Premier of Victoria. (2022, August 31).  Affirmative consent model now law In Victoria  [Media release] .   https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/affirmative-consent-model-now-law-victoria

Qu, L., Kaspiew, R., Carson, R., Roopani, D., De Maio, J., Harvey, J., & Horsfall, B. (2021).  National elder abuse prevalence study: Final report.  Australian Institute of Family Studies.  https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2021-12/apo-nid315734.pdf

Rape and Sexual Assault Research and Advocacy. (2021).  Sexual consent toolkit.   https://rasaraorganisation.squarespace.com/consent-toolkit-home

Reed, L. A., Ward, L. M., Tolman, R. M., Lippman, J. R., & Seabrook, R. C. (2018). The association between stereotypical gender and dating beliefs and digital dating abuse perpetration in adolescent dating relationships.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36 (9–10), NP5561–NP5585.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518801933

Respect Victoria, & Our Watch. (2022).  Understanding backlash and resistance.  https://www.respectvictoria.vic.gov.au/understanding-backlash-and-resistance

Riach, K., O’Hare, C., Dalton, B., & Wang, C. (2018).  The future face of poverty is female: Stories behind Australian women’s superannuation poverty in retirement . AustralianSuper.  https://www.australiansuper.com/campaigns/future-face-of-poverty

Rizzo, A. J., Banyard, V. L., & Edwards, K. M. (2020). Unpacking adolescent masculinity: Relations between boys’ sexual harassment victimization, perpetration, and gender role beliefs.  Journal of Family Violence, 36 , 825–835.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00187-9

Roberts, L. L. (2019). Changing worldwide attitudes toward homosexuality: The influence of global and region-specific cultures, 1981–2012.  Social Science Research, 80 , 114–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2018.12.003

Sabol, B. M., Kernsmith, P. D., Hicks, M. R., & Smith-Darden, J. P. (2020). Attitudes about aggression and perpetration of adolescent dating aggression: A cross-lagged panel model . Journal of Adolescence, 83 (1), 100–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.07.005

Seff, I. (2021). Social norms sustaining intimate partner violence: A systematic review of methodologies for proxy measures.  Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 23(5) , 1708–1727.  https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380211013141

Serpell, B., Sullivan, T., & Doherty, L. (2022).  Homicide in Australia 2019–20.  Australian Institute of Criminology.   https://doi.org/10.52922/sr78511

Serrato Calero, M. d., Delgado-Vázquez, Á. M., & Díaz Jiménez, R. M. (2020). Systematized review and meta-synthesis of the sterilization of women with disabilities in the field of social science: From macroeugenics to microeugenics.  Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18,  653–671.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00488-0

Sex Discrimination Act 1984  (Cth). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2023C00003

Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. H. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change.  Archives of Sexual Behavior , 15 (2), 97–120.

Snyder, J. A., Scherer, H. L., & Fisher, B. S. (2018). Interpersonal violence among college students: Does sexual orientation impact risk of victimization?  Journal of School Violence, 17 (1), 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2016.1190934

Sokoloff, N. J., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class, and gender: Challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities.  Violence Against Women, 11 (1), 38–64.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801204271476

Song, Y., Zhang, J., & Zhang, X. (2020). Cultural or institutional? Contextual effects on domestic violence against women in rural China.  Journal of Family Violence, 36 , 643–655.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00198-6

Sri, A. S., Das, P., Gnanapragasam, S., & Persaud, A. (2021). COVID-19 and the violence against women and girls: “The shadow pandemic”.  International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 67 (8), 971-973.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764021995556

Stein, S., Kohut, T., & Dillenburger, K. (2018). The importance of sexuality education for children with and without intellectual disabilities: What parents think.  Sexuality and Disability, 36 (2), 141–148.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11195-017-9513-9

Streur, C. S., Schafer, C. L., Garcia, V. P., Quint, E. H., Sandberg, D. E., & Wittmann, D. A. (2019). “If everyone else is having this talk with their doctor, why am I not having this talk with mine?”: The experiences of sexuality and sexual health education of young women with spina bifida.  Journal of Sexual Medicine, 16 (6), 853–859.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.03.012

Suedfeld, P. (2017).  Attitude change: The competing views.  Routledge.

Syzdek, M. R., & Addis, M. E. (2010). Adherence to masculine norms and attributional processes predict depressive symptoms in recently unemployed men.  Cognitive Therapy and Research, 34( 6), 533–543.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9290-6

Teach Us Consent. (2021).  Teach us consent.   https://www.teachusconsent.com/

The STOP Campaign. (2022).  Our impact.  https://www.thestopcampaign.org.au/our-impact

Thiara, R. K., Hague, G., & Mullender, A. (2011). Losing out on both counts: Disabled women and domestic violence.  Disability & Society, 26 (6), 757–771.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2011.602867

Tomsa, R., Gutu, S., Cojocaru, D., Gutiérrez-Bermejo, B., Flores, N., & Jenaro, C. (2021). Prevalence of sexual abuse in adults with intellectual disability: Systematic review and meta-analysis.  International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (4), 1980.  https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/1980

Ussher, J. M., Hawkey, A., Perz, J., Liamputtong, P., Marjadi, B., Schmied, V., Dune, T., Sekar, J. A., Ryan, S., Charter, R., Thepsourinthone, J., Noack-Lundberg, K., & Brook, E. (2020).  Crossing the line: Lived experience of sexual violence among trans women of colour from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds in Australia.  ANROWS.  https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/RP.17.03-Experiences-of-trans_women-and-DV_RR.1.pdf

Verroya, M., Hennessy, N., Panont, N., & Menon, A. (2022).  Shifting mindsets to challenge gender roles.   https://www.unaa.org.au/2022/03/31/gender-roles-in-australia/

VicHealth. (2017).  Violence against women in Australia: An overview of research and approaches to primary prevention.  https://www.vichealth.vic.gov.au/-/media/ResourceCentre/PublicationsandResources/PVAW/Violence-Against-Women-Research-Overview.pdf

Wahid, A., Hemat, M. O., & Corboz, J. (2018). The relationship between children’s violence-supportive attitudes and experience of violence victimisation and perpetration in Afghanistan.  Injury Prevention, 24,  A123.  https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprevention-2018-safety.341

Watego, C., Macoun, A., Singh, D., & Strakosch, E. (2021, July 6). Carceral feminism and coercive control: when Indigenous women aren’t seen as ideal victims, witnesses or women.  The Conversation.   https://theconversation.com/carceral-feminism-and-coercive-control-when-indigenous-women-arent-seen-as-ideal-victims-witnesses-or-women-161091

Webster, K., Diemer, K., Honey, N., Mannix, S., Mickle, J., Morgan, J., Parkes, A., Politoff, V., Powell, A., Stubbs, J., & Ward, A. (2018).  Australians’ attitudes to violence against women and gender equality: Findings from the 2017 National Community Attitudes towards Violence against Women Survey (NCAS)  (Research report, Issue 03/2018). ANROWS.  https://20ian81kynqg38bl3l3eh8bf-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/anr001-NCAS-report-WEB-1019.pdf

Weldon, C., & Kerr, A. (2020). Escaping family violence: How the justice system is failing Aboriginal women.  Precedent (Sydney, NSW), 159 , 16.  https://search.informit.org/documentSummary;dn=344244162621697;res=IELAPA

Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (2019).  Gender strategy toolkit.  Australian Government.  https://www.wgea.gov.au/tools/gender-strategy-toolkit

Workplace Gender Equality Agency. (2022).  Australia’s gender equality scorecard – February 2022: Key results from the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s 2020–21 employer census . Workplace Gender Equality Agency.  https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-files/2022-02/apo-nid316412.pdf

World Health Organization. (2021).  Violence against women prevalence estimates, 2018: Global, regional and national prevalence estimates for intimate partner violence against women and global and regional prevalence estimates for non-partner sexual violence against women . United Nations Inter-Agency Working Group on Violence Against Women Estimation and Data.  https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/341337/9789240022256-eng.pdf?sequence=1

World Health Organization. (2022).  Female genital mutilation.  https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation

Yeo, H., Choi, Y. J., Son, E., Cho, H., Yun, S. H., & Lee, J. O. (2021). Childhood community risk factors on intimate partner violence perpetration and victimization among college students.  Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37 (21–22).  https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211050097

Zhang, H. (2020). The influence of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic on family violence in China.  Journal of Family Violence, 37 , 733–743.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00196-8

The cooperation rate was 80.1 per cent and the refusal rate was 15.0 per cent. See  Technical report , section T8.4 (Coumarelos et al., 2023), for the calculation of the response, cooperation and refusal rates. ↑

The “advanced” TFAS category means that the respondent answered “yes, always” the behaviour is violence or “strongly disagreed” with problematic attitudes for at least 75 per cent of items, and answered the remaining items “yes, usually” or “somewhat disagree”. ↑

Multiple linear regression was used when the outcome variables were scale scores (continuous variables) and multiple logistic regression was used when the outcomes variables were likelihood of bystander responses (dichotomous variables). ↑

Expressed as a proportion of  all  respondents (rather than as a proportion of those who would be bothered), 59 per cent of respondents said they would show their disapproval in the friend sexist joke scenario; 63 per cent would do so in the boss sexist joke scenario; and 92 per cent would do so in the friend verbal abuse scenario ↑

See also implications for sexual assault and attitudes towards violence against women. ↑

See also the implications relating to men in Section 10.7. ↑

In addition to the general stress that can result from unemployment and financial difficulties, unemployment can also produce “masculine role stress” for men who adhere to rigid masculinity norms that men should be the main income earner for their family (Baugher & Gazmararian, 2015; Harrington et al., 2021; Kim & Luke, 2020; Syzdek & Addis, 2010; Webster at al., 2018). ↑

Subscribe to receive news and updates directly to your inbox.

• Name First Last

Or connect with us

Other items.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

The upsurge of rape during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria and its effects on survivors

2022, HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies

As one of the global measures for containing the spread of the dreaded coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Nigerian government imposed a total lockdown from 30 March 2020 to 15 May 2020. This exposed a lot of women and children to a greater level of sexual violence such as rape, which has persisted even before COVID-19. On 14 July 2020, the Nigerian Minister of Women Affairs and Social Development, Pauline Tallen, reportedly said that over 3600 rape cases were recorded across Nigeria during the lockdown. The sudden rise in cases of rape in the country calls for urgent attention. The article explores the effects of rape during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria using expository and phenomenological designs. It used data obtained from: (1) articles and commentaries on the websites of various newspapers in Nigeria, (2) existing works and (3) interviews with women and girls who were either survivors or connected to the victims of rape during the COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria. The find...

Related Papers

Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities

Joy Ejikeme

This paper examines the new vista opened by the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic specifically the issue of rape criminality in Nigeria. Regrettably, Covid-19 lockdown saw to the different dimensions to rape crime which is the household rape. In addition, this study beams its searchlight on the most vulnerable group; women and girl children affected by the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown especially those that were Internally Displaced from their homes, the IDPs. Furthermore, this study observes that the lockdown in Nigeria resulted in many deaths and injuries on the verge of enforcing the Covid-19 lockdown rules. Relevant materials for this paper have been sourced from newspapers, online publications in journals, and books while the descriptive method of analysis has been adopted.

Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies (Ajells)

Olubunmi T A Y O Agboola

With the intrusion of the Covid-19 pandemic into the Nigerian scene, there has been a surge in gender-based violence in society coupled with the lockdown experience. Rape, one of the genderbased violence against women, is endemic and seems to be encouraged due to the complacency of governmental establishments. This paper examines the execution of the rule of law in Nigeria through government and official parastatals in curbing this menace within the Nigerian space. Laws against rape, many insist, are not deterrent enough and have fueled a pervading culture of silence. In recourse to this view, this paper utilizes the feminism theory to interpret the oppression faced by women/females and the ineffectiveness of the rule of law in Nigeria. The study provides a critical and literary analysis of narratives culled from Nigeria Newspapers and some social media platforms to investigate the two-edged pandemic of Covid-19 and rape. The paper concludes that the Nigerian government/ judicial system need to be accountable to its citizenry in implementing rape laws. Also, law enforcement officials must be educated on treating rape issues. Furthermore, the populace should be sensitized against victimizing rape victims.

Babcock University Medical Journal

Boladale M Mapayi

The global pandemic of the coronavirus has resulted in a disruption in life as we know it, with massive effects on tourism, the healthcare system, and the global economy at large. Many countries, initiated measures to curtail the spread of the virus with non-pharmaceutical interventions such as lockdown, quarantine, social distancing, and movement restrictions. These measures while preventing the spread of the virus may have triggered another pandemic, albeit a silent one. This article reviews the burden of domestic, sexual, and gender-based violence in Nigeria highlighting the factors that may have interplayed with the lockdown to worsen the situation in Nigeria. This article also focuses on measures to strengthen medical, legal, and supportive responses to survivors.

Omowumi O Okedare

Background: Emergency situations, including epidemics, increase incidence of violence against women, especially intimate partner violence (IPV). This paper describes specific scenarios of IPV reported by women during the COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria to provide insight for policy and programmatic efforts. Methods: This paper draws on seven de-identified case reports from organisations serving women experiencing IPV as well as media coverage of IPV cases in Nigeria, between April and May, 2020. Results: In most cases, reports identified IPV that was occurring prior to the lockdown, but increased in severity or involved new types of violence during the lockdown. The case scenarios included descriptions of many forms of IPV commonly reported, including physical, economic, psychological and sexual violence, often concurrently. Several women also reported threats of being thrown out of their homes by perpetrators, which threatens women's ability to protect themselves from exposure to COVID-19, but could also leave women stranded with no access to transportation , social services, or other resources during the lockdown. Several women also reported IPV that involved custody of children, as well as IPV that disrupted women's income generation. IPV was also reported in relation to economic stressors associated with the lockdown. Reports highlight how the lockdown disrupted women's social support, hindering accessibility of formal and informal sources of help. Conclusion: The lockdowns in Nigeria may have inadvertently placed women already experiencing partner violence at risk for experiencing more severe violence, new challenges to cope with violent experiences, and other forms of violence, including violence that used the lockdown as a way to threaten women's security and ability to protect themselves from the virus. Hence, there is need for innovative approaches to support victims, with emphasis on ways in which perpetrators of IPV may be using the threat of COVID-19 to further gain power and control over partners.

Tade Oludayo

Using five popular rape victimisation cases which occurred during COVID-19 lockdown in Nigeria, this paper shows how the mastery of routines of rape victims by sexual predators enhanced the success of rape victimisation. Elements of routine activity theory such as motivated offender, attractive targets and absence of capable guardianship is used to analyse each case to signpost and underscore the importance and centrality of active capable guardianship to dislodge and neutralise rape offend-ers' routine mastery around attractive targets. The paper recommends mounting capable guardianship to checking growing menace of rape in Nigeria. Attractive target should eliminate risky routines and poisonous relationship which could enhance their chances of sexual violation.

Innovative Research in Social Sciences and Strategic Management Techniques

Abolade Falana

Rape has long been a brutal part of the human history of forceful sexual intercourse against a person who is weakened, unconscious or powerless of giving valid permission. The documented rise in sexual violence in Nigeria especially people with poor socio-economic legislators and status is not only attributed to excessive drinking and indecent dressing but men superiority or the support of culture and beliefs that rape is a sign of maleness the fear of stigmatization, extortion from law enforcement, and lastly lack of confidence in the judicial system. However, there is a paucity of literature on how socio-legal attributes on rape victims in Nigeria. Hence, this study investigated the effect of socio-legal attitudes toward rape victims in Nigeria. The study employed a survey research design. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to 1000 respondents to obtain information on relevant issues through the aid of Google. Results from the study show that majority of the respondents had a negative attitude towards rape victims. There was an effect on gender differences in the attitude of Nigerians to male rape victims based on gender differences with a p-value < 0.05 2 (0.000, X = 197.307). Therefore, we failed to reject the alternate hypothesis. There was an effect in the attitude of Nigerians to female rape victims based on gender 2 differences with a p-value < 0.05 (0.000, X = 18.955). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. In conclusion, there is a need for public health education on rape and as well encouragement of victims to report cases with an assurance of their safety. Specialized women's rights organizations should provide capacity-building support and logistics services to youths and students in higher institutions and more studies should be carried out to identify the perception of gender-based rape among specific regions in the country and assessment of rape myths and factors that make them

Jurnal Hukum

Paul Aidonojie

It is a truism that several legal frameworks emphasize the right of a girl child in Nigeria. However, despite these legal frameworks that tend to recognize the rights and protection of the girl child, it has been observed that, before and during Covid-19 in Nigeria, there has been an increase of abuse of the girl child. The abuse of a girl child results from the Nigerian societal norms and legal framework missing link that downplay the protection of the girl child. It is concerning the above that this study adopts a hybrid research method, which includes a doctrinal and non-doctrinal approach in ascertaining the Nigerian societal norms and legal missing link concerning the protection of a girl child. Therefore, the study employs an online questionnaire survey sent to 322 respondents (randomly selected) who live in Nigeria to ascertain their view concerning the Nigerian societal norms and legal framework missing link concerning the protection of a girl child before and during the Cov...

African Health Sciences

Background: Gender-based violence (GBV) has been identified to be one of the ripple effects of the global pandemic. In countries like Nigeria, the situation is hypothesized to be worse because of widespread poverty and gender inequalities. Objective: To examine the exposure of females to GBV during the first 3 months of the COVID-19 lockdown. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted in a low-income community in Lagos. Semi-structured questionnaires were administered to 130 respondents selected via systematic random sampling. Results: The mean age of the respondents was 26.89 ± 8.67 years. Majority worked informal jobs, while only 50% had attained beyond primary education. Within the period, the respondents had been subjected to sexual (54.6%), physical (52.3%), verbal assault (41.5%), and online sexual harassment (45.4%); of which only 30% reported to the police. Furthermore, respondents subjected to sexual (p=0.004) and physical assault (p=0.032) during the period earned s...

International Journal of Managerial Studies and Research

Oludayo Olorunfemi

HUMANUS DISCOURSE

Humanus Discourse

Gender-based violence from time immemorial has been with the inhabitants of the SouthWest , Nigeria. It has become a cultural transition phenomenon. Genderbased violence can be described as violence directed against women because they are women or that disproportionately affecting women. COVID-19 pandemic worsens the occurrence of gender-based violence. Lockdown provided opportunities for perpetrators of gender-based violence to attacked women and young girls. Men were at home most times. Offices were lockdown. Movements were restricted. Women lost their jobs, and they became prey to their husbands and outsiders. COVID-19 pandemic presented key challenges in displacement contexts with increased gender-based violence, in addition to and resulting from loss of income and household stress; as well as barriers to help-seeking options for survivors. Gender-based violence is both biological and cultural learning attitude. Cultural Transmission Theory (CT) as a theoretical explanation of the prevalence of gender-based violence in SouthWest , Nigeria. This paper, therefore, identifies stakeholders on the prevention of gender-based violence such as the government, survivors, development partners, and non-governmental organizations. In this paper, the following prevention mechanisms were suggested such as prompt arrest and prosecution of gender-based offenders, scholarship, and stipends for women and young girls.

RELATED PAPERS

Santiago Vicente Llavata

International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation

NATHALIE ANN A L A G A ACOSTA

Radiotherapy and Oncology

rajendra bhalavat

Biochemical Journal

Sabine Klein

PLoS pathogens

Mohammed Haider

Revista Científica Hermes-Fipen

Cláudio Parisi

Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Laura Annovazzi

Jürgen Budde

Rio Andrian Saputra

BECHAN SINGH

Breast Cancer Research

Valery Lunts

Elton Cirqueira

Anna Krakovska

布鲁克大学毕业证书 购买加拿大学历BU文凭学位证书成绩单

Dimas Pradytio

DIMAS PRADYTIO

Journal of the American Heart Association

Jeffrey Towbin

Circulation

Robert Arzbaecher

Byzantion Nea Hellas

Miguel Castillo Didier

Acta Ophthalmologica

Alenka Lavric

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

The Ceaseless Cycle of Violence, Cause of Malaise and Cooperation of Human Beings as Cause of Well Being

• First Online: 30 May 2024

Cite this chapter

• Maria Giulia Marini 12 , 13  

Part of the book series: New Paradigms in Healthcare

Our contemporary age is a period in which human beings, with incredible acceleration, have produced (and are continually bringing about) a technological revolution that has had a frightening impact. What do I mean when I say “frightening?” Let us review some statistics; 10% of the total population on earth holds 75% of the global wealth, we have a population that is very difficult to feed and provide healthcare and hospitality to. Today there are about eight billion inhabitants on earth, as of November 2022, compared to the people of one and seven billion estimated in 1910. Moreover, we cannot fail to mention the damage, most likely irreversible, done to our planet that have led to global warming and thus, the desertification and inability to cultivate food [1].

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

https://www.un.org/en/un-chronicle/world-population-surpasses-8-billion-what-are-implications-planetary-health-and

Iain MGC. The master and his emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World. Yale University Press; 2019.

Google Scholar  

https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/wir2022_en.pdf

Sigmund F. Civilization and its discontents. London: The Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis; 1972.

Hannah A. Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil. Viking Press; 1963.

Herbert M. One-dimensional man: studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Beacon Press; 1991.

Calvino I. Le Città Invisibili. Giulio Einaudi Edition; 1972.

Nixon R. Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2011.

Book   Google Scholar  

WHO. World Health Statistics 2023. Monitoring Health for SDGs; 2023. www.who.org

Marcelo S, et al. Are we ready for a true biopsychosocial–spiritual model? The many meanings of “spiritual”. Medicines (Basel). 2017;4(4):79.

https://www.fao.org/3/cb4476en/cb4476en.pdf

Chan A. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/america-never-abolished-slavery_b_6777420

Yuval H. Sapiens—a brief history of humankind. Penguin Random House UK; 2011.

https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/international-classification-of-functioning-disability-and-health

Merleau-Ponty M. Phenomenology of perception. Taylor & Francis Ltd.; 2013.

Boucher S, et al. The role of play in children’s palliative care. Children. 2014;1(3):302–17.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Association for Children’s Palliative Care (ACT) Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). A guide to the development of children’s palliative care services: report of the joint working party. Bristol: ACT/RCPCH; 1997.

Vico GB. La Scienza nuova. 1743.

https://www.health.org.uk/publications/build-back-fairer-the-covid-19-marmot-review

Proyer F. 2017. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311631718_A_new_structural_model_for_the_study_of_adult_playfulness_Assessment_and_exploration_of_an_understudied_individual_differences_variable .

Italo C. Six memos for the next millennium. Penguin Books Ltd; 2016.

Chesi P, Mencacci C, et al. Multicentre narrative research on major depression to integrate the experiences of patients, their caregivers and healthcare providers in Italy. BMJ. 2022;12(10):e052744.

https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Director of ISTUD Sanità e Salute, Milan, Italy

Maria Giulia Marini

President of EUNAMES – European Narrative Medicine Society, Milan, Italy

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria Giulia Marini .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Marini, M.G. (2024). The Ceaseless Cycle of Violence, Cause of Malaise and Cooperation of Human Beings as Cause of Well Being. In: Non-violent Communication and Narrative Medicine for Promoting Sustainable Health. New Paradigms in Healthcare. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58691-0_9

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58691-0_9

Published : 30 May 2024

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-58690-3

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-58691-0

eBook Packages : Medicine Medicine (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Open access
• Published: 23 May 2024

Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review protocol

• N. Vousden   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5216-8268 1 ,
• D. Geddes-Barton 1 ,
• N. Roberts 2 &
• M. Knight 1  

Systematic Reviews volume  13 , Article number:  139 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

152 Accesses

Metrics details

Women who live with disadvantages such as socioeconomic deprivation, substance misuse, poor mental health, or domestic abuse face inequalities in health before, during, and after pregnancy and for their infants through to childhood. Women do not experience these factors alone; they accumulate and interact. Therefore, there is a need for an overview of interventions that work across health and social care and target women at risk of inequalities in maternal or child health.

Systematic review methodology will be used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe interventions aiming to reduce inequalities for women who experience social disadvantage during pregnancy. We will describe the range of interventions and their effectiveness in reducing inequalities in maternal or child health. Any individual, hospital, or community-level activity specific to women during the pre-conception, antenatal, or postpartum period up to 1 year after birth will be included, regardless of the setting in which they are delivered. We will search eight electronic databases with the pre-determined search strategy and supplement them with extensive grey literature searches. We will present a narrative synthesis, taking into account the quality assessment and coverage of included studies.

Inequalities in maternal and child health are a key priority area for national policymakers. Understanding the range and effectiveness of interventions across the perinatal period will inform policy and practice. Identifying gaps in the evidence will inform future research.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42023455502.

Peer Review reports

Women who live in the most deprived areas of England are more than twice as likely to die in pregnancy [ 1 ] or experience poor outcomes such as stillbirth [ 2 ], preterm birth, and fetal growth restriction [ 3 ] compared to women in the most affluent areas. This evidence is based on neighborhood deprivation measures therefore inadequately describes the extent of health inequity experienced by individuals who live at the extreme margins of social disadvantage or have multiple intersecting risk factors. For example, low socioeconomic status is often associated with increased social risks such as housing instability and poor mental health. Confidential inquiries into the care of women who die during pregnancy and the postnatal period in the United Kingdom have identified that 12% experienced severe and multiple disadvantages [ 1 ], most commonly mental health diagnosis, substance use, and domestic abuse [ 1 ]. In addition, the negative health and educational impacts on offspring of growing up in poverty [ 4 ] or being exposed to adverse experiences in childhood [ 5 ] are widely documented. This highlights the need for interventions to effectively prevent and address multiple complex needs as a whole, rather than for discrete populations with a single risk factor.

Reducing socio-economic inequalities in maternal and perinatal health has been a key priority for the government in the UK [ 6 , 7 , 8 ] and internationally [ 9 ]. Current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on complex social factors in pregnancy, written in 2010, focuses on four key areas, women with alcohol or drug misuse, recent migrant or asylum seeker status, young mothers, and women experiencing domestic abuse [ 10 ]. However, it was written in 2010 and the lack of high-quality evidence to inform personalized care for women with social complexity, meant the guidance heavily relied on expert opinion. Later reviews of this guidance in 2012 and 2018 recommended a wider range of social complexity was covered including mental health and homelessness [ 11 ].

There are conflicting opinions on the persisting focus on health systems to mitigate social determinants of health. While structural change, for example, reduction of family poverty through improved welfare systems and employment opportunities is undoubtedly vital [ 12 ], pregnancy and the postnatal period have been proposed to be a unique opportunity when nearly all women access health services and potentially can be engaged in health-promoting activities with long-term intergenerational impacts [ 13 ]. Existing reviews have explored interventions to reduce inequalities focusing on the model of antenatal care [ 14 , 15 ] or specific short-term pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth [ 16 ]. But, given that socioeconomic disadvantage is present before pregnancy, and has far-reaching implications for the next generation, there is a need to identify and understand interventions that utilize a cross-disciplinary approach, beyond maternity care [ 17 ].

Confidential inquiries into maternal mortality in the UK consistently report the need for improved integration of health and social care services to create seamless pathways [ 17 ]. This is echoed in an analysis of the Lancet series on midwifery, which highlighted that future research should prioritize care “tailored to individuals, (which) weighs benefits and harms, is person-centered, (and) works across the whole continuum of care” [ 7 ]. Therefore, there is a need for an overview of interventions across health and social care targeting women at risk of inequalities in maternal or child health as a result of social disadvantage before, during, and after pregnancy.

This review is informed by perspectives on social exclusion [ 18 ], intersectionality [ 19 ], and life-course epidemiology [ 20 ] which examine how factors accumulate and intersect over time and affect health. With a recent policy that prioritizes person-centered care [ 7 ] and equity of health outcomes [ 7 , 21 ], we anticipate that the findings will be beneficial to policymakers, service providers, and commissioners.

Registration and protocol adherence

This research question has been developed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, researchers, and methodologists. It was designed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA) [ 22 ] and registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews on 22/08/2023 (PROSPERO, no: CRD42023455502). We started developing this protocol in May 2023 and the review is expected to be completed in January 2024. The terms ‘pregnant women’ and ‘mothers’ will be used throughout this paper [ 23 ], but the authors recognize not everyone who is pregnant or giving birth will identify as a woman or a mother.

This systematic review aims to synthesize the quantitative literature in order to identify what interventions exist, and how effective they are, at reducing inequalities in maternal and child health for pregnant women living with disadvantages in high-income countries.

Eligibility Criteria and Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) framework

There is no clear definition for risks that define disadvantage. Therefore, the eligibility criteria for this study were defined as exposures or factors that are associated with deprivation and with adverse maternal or fetal outcomes (or a strong hypothesis for this, in the absence of data). Women with one or more of the following exposures prior to or during pregnancy: substance or alcohol misuse (excluding tobacco), involvement in the judicial system/prison, victim of modern slavery, homelessness or insecure housing, socioeconomic deprivation (measured for individual), domestic abuse or intimate partner violence, experience of sex work, young mothers (age < 20) [ 24 , 25 , 26 ], underserved migrant women, women with a mental health diagnosis [ 27 ] and women from minoritized ethnic groups including Gypsy, Roma and Travelling communities [ 28 ].

Interventions

Any individual, hospital, or community-level activity will be included, regardless of the setting in which they are delivered. Interventions must be specific to women during the pre-conception, antenatal, or postpartum period up to 1 year after birth. For the purposes of this paper, we defined pre-conception as interventions that targeted preparing for a healthy pregnancy. Therefore, interventions in women of reproductive age who experienced disadvantages that were not targeting any part of the pregnancy journey (preparing, pregnancy, or postnatal period) will not be eligible for inclusion. We will also evaluate the suitability of any effective interventions to the UK health and social care setting and perform a sub-analysis if appropriate.

Studies with any comparison or control group will be included.

The main outcomes of interest will be maternal morbidity and mortality, preterm birth, birth weight, and attendance at care, reflecting the existing literature on important inequalities in maternal and child health. However, we will include all outcomes related to inequalities in maternal and child health up to 5 years of age from all retrieved studies. For example, mode of birth, mental well-being as assessed by validated screening scales, breastfeeding initiation and duration, family planning, immunization, and indicators of adverse childhood experience (e.g., emergency hospital attendances).

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

This umbrella review will include only systematic reviews and meta-analyses as defined by the Cochrane Collaboration’s Handbook definition of systematic reviews of interventions (i.e., “reviews of clearly formulated questions that use systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant research”). Therefore, the reviews must use a comprehensive literature search strategy and a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies that were included in the review. This has been chosen as the aim is to assess the effectiveness of interventions, not just identify or map interventions, and therefore assessment of methodological limitations and bias is the key in the interpretation of the evidence. The umbrella review will enable a summation of a broad literature base of disadvantages in pregnancy which would be unfeasible if primary studies were included.

Studies undertaken in high-income countries, as defined by the World Bank GNI (2019), published in any language from 2013 to 2023 will be included. This 10-year period was selected as per the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance as they are considered to represent the contemporaneous evidence base over the previous 30 years [ 29 ]. Included studies will either specifically target the defined population or present disaggregated data for a defined subgroup. Abstracts, comments, editorials, letters, or non-systematic reviews will be excluded. Solely qualitative studies will be excluded. We will include systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of health care interventions. This method has been selected as we aspire to identify the range of interventions available across the spectrum of disadvantage, but also be able to report definitive effectiveness data with a feasible number of results.

Data collection and appraisal

The search strategy has been developed with assistance from an expert information specialist and adapted for each database (Additional file 1). The following electronic databases will be searched: EMBASE (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Science Citation Index & Social Science Citation Index via Web of Science Core Collection, CINAHL (EBSCOHost), PsycINFO (OvidSP) and ASSIA (Proquest), and systematic review repositories: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Cochrane Library, Wiley) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ ). Grey literature sources will include backward and forward citation searches for all included articles and reference lists of related systematic reviews. Relevant third-sector organizations such as Birth Rights, Birth Companions, Maternity Action, and Sands will also be searched for evidence summaries, alongside the first 150 results of Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov.

The titles and abstracts of the studies retrieved during the searches will be independently assessed by two reviewers for relevance. The full texts of potentially eligible studies will then be retrieved and reviewed independently using a checklist of the inclusion and exclusion criteria by two reviewers. Any disagreements will be resolved by consensus and, if necessary, a third review researcher will be consulted, and will resolve issues. A table of excluded studies is found in Additional file 2.

A data extraction form will be designed in Excel and initially piloted on a small sample of papers by two review authors. Data extraction for the first 20% of the studies will be undertaken independently by two authors, if there is good agreement then a single author will complete data extraction for the remaining studies. This will include (1) author and publication year, (2) methodology (aim, type of review, location), (3) population characteristics (number of participants, demographics), (4) search methods (number of databases searched, date range of searching, publication date range of studies included in the review that inform each outcome of interest, (5) number of studies, type of studies, country of origin of studies included in each review, (6) instrument used to appraise the primary studies and their risk of bias, (7) included intervention details including timing, duration, setting (e.g., community or hospital) and mode of delivery, (8) outcomes related to this question, (9) method of synthesis and (10) quality of the included primary studies as assessed by review authors, (11) conflict of interest. In line with PRISMA guidelines, a flowchart will summarize the selection process. EndNote™ will be used to collect and manage the studies retrieved [ 30 ]. Covidence™ will be used for deduplication and study selection [ 31 ]. We will extract data from the systematic review (and any supplementary material), not from original primary studies. If there is data missing or inadequately described in reviews, we will note the gap in coverage but will not routinely refer back to the primary studies due to the additional burden on time and resources [ 29 , 32 ].

The AMSTAR 2 appraisal tool will be used to assess the quality of included reviews [ 33 ]. This will enable an overall rating of confidence in the results of the review (high, moderate, low, or critically low). Quality appraisal results will be summarized in a table, including the rating for each question of the tool for each review, the rationale behind assessments, and the overall rating for each review. All reviews meeting the inclusion criteria will be presented, irrespective of AMSTAR findings [ 33 ]. Two authors will assess the quality of each text for 20% of studies with discrepancies resolved by consensus. If there is good agreement then a single author will assess the quality of the remaining texts.

Data synthesis

This data synthesis plan is informed by Cochrane guidance for undertaking an overview of reviews [ 32 ]. Due to the broad topic being studied and the expected heterogeneity of the exposure group and interventions, we will present a narrative synthesis of the systematic reviews and not meta-analysis.

We will present an overlap of primary studies using a pairwise intersection heat map [ 34 ]. This has been chosen to visually and simply demonstrate patterns of high or low overlap given the anticipated large number of primary studies that will be included. Where meta-analysis from separate reviews contains overlapping primary studies, we will prioritize the summary result from the highest quality review according to the AMSTAR rating.

We will map the available evidence and explore the patterns in the data. For example, we will describe the findings according to the target population, for example, whether a specific social exposure (e.g., domestic abuse and intimate partner violence) was the focus or broader inclusion criteria were used and categorize interventions by the timing of delivery (pre-pregnancy, pregnancy or postnatal) and the level of change that was intended, for example individual, organizational or community interventions. Where there is sufficient homogeneity in the population, intervention type, and outcome, we will describe similarities and differences between the findings, taking into account the strength of evidence and risk of bias of the reviews and the included studies.

Since the purpose of the review is to identify the breadth and effectiveness of interventions, where relevant reviews entirely meet our inclusion criteria, we will summarize the narrative or meta-analysis results, reporting the summary result, 95% confidence intervals, and measures of heterogeneity [ 32 ]. In this case, we will extract and report GRADE assessments, where available, to describe the certainty of evidence. If relevant reviews include only some primary studies conducted in the target population/setting/study design, then the findings of these primary studies will be presented, where there is a specific subgroup reported or at least three primary studies meet our inclusion criteria. In this case, we will narratively re-synthesize the outcome data from primary studies that meet the inclusion criteria of this review (e.g., primary studies of pregnant women with social disadvantage in a review that included all pregnant women). Where GRADE assessments are available for these subgroups these will also be extracted and reported. Overall, we will then narratively describe interventions according to whether they are effective, promising, ineffective, or probably ineffective or unable to conclude effectiveness.

Stakeholder engagement

To enhance the usefulness of the review we will actively involve stakeholders (families, midwives, doctors, health visitors, third sector, health decision-makers, and funders). We will create a lived experience team of women with social disadvantages around pregnancy and use a series of discussions to explore the acceptability and relevance of the identified interventions. We will carry out two stakeholder workshops to explore how the findings fit with current guidance, practice, and need, in the context of the UK health and social care system, in order to identify the implications for services, policy, and research.

The design of this umbrella review has been chosen to provide an overview of the range and efficacy of interventions aiming to mitigate social disadvantages around pregnancy. This design is beneficial in giving an overview of the types of interventions and quality of research in this field to date [ 35 ]. This is specifically useful given the aim of evaluating interventions that may work across health and social care systems before, during, and after pregnancy. However, there are limitations in this approach in that the heterogeneity in studies increases the burden for decision-makers [ 36 ] and promising interventions that have not been examined in systematic reviews will not be included.

This study is also limited to exploring the quantitative effect of interventions on health outcomes. This simple perspective was selected to provide a clear resource for clinicians and policymakers. However, it leaves many questions about the components of multifaceted interventions, and how they work and interact in different settings, unanswered [ 37 , 38 ].

The findings of this umbrella review will enable recommendations for future research where there are gaps for women known to be at increased risk. We also hope to identify potential effective interventions that warrant further investigation, or that can inform policy and practice to reduce inequalities in maternal and child health.

Availability of data and materials

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Knight M, Bunch K, Felker A, Patel R, Kotnis R, Kenyon S, Kurinczuk JJ, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK, editors. Saving lives, improving mothers’ care core report - lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2019–21. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit: University of Oxford; 2023. https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/mbrrace-uk/reports/maternal-report-2023/MBRRACE-UK_Maternal_Compiled_Report_2023.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Draper ES GI, Smith LK, Matthews RJ, Fenton AC, Kurinczuk JJ, Smith PW, Manktelow BN, on behalf of the MBRRACE-UK Collaboration. MBRRACE-UK perinatal mortality surveillance: UK perinatal deaths for births from January to December 2021: The State of the Nation Report Leicester: The Infant Mortality and Morbidity Studies: Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Leicester; 2023. https://timms.le.ac.uk/mbrrace-uk-perinatal-mortality/surveillance/ . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Jardine J, Walker K, Gurol-Urganci I, Webster K, Muller P, Hawdon J, et al. Adverse pregnancy outcomes attributable to socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in England: a national cohort study. Lancet. 2021;398(10314):1905–12.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Jutte DP, Brownell M, Roos NP, Schippers C, Boyce WT, Syme SL. Rethinking what is important: biologic versus social predictors of childhood health and educational outcomes. Epidemiology. 2010;21(3):314–23.

Houtepen LC, Heron J, Suderman MJ, Fraser A, Chittleborough CR, Howe LD. Associations of adverse childhood experiences with educational attainment and adolescent health and the role of family and socioeconomic factors: a prospective cohort study in the UK. PLoS Med. 2020;17(3):e1003031.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Department of Health & Social Care. Maternity Disparities Taskforce: terms of reference. 2022. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/maternity-disparities-taskforce-terms-of-reference/maternity-disparities-taskforce-terms-of-reference . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Alderwick H, Dixon J. The NHS long term plan. BMJ. 2019;364:l84.

NHS England. Equity and equality guidance for local maternity systems. NHS England; 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/C0734-equity-and-equality-guidance-for-local-maternity-systems.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Ki-Moon B. Global Strategy for Women's and Children's Health. New York: World Health Organisation: United Nations; 2010. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/Health/GlobalStrategy.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2024.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Pregnancy and complex social factors: a model for service provision for pregnant women with complex social factors. NICE guidelines CG110: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2010. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg110 . Accessed 15 May 2024.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Surveillance proposal consultation document: 2018 surveillance of pregnancy and complex social factors NICE: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2018. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg110/resources/2018-surveillance-of-pregnancy-and-complex-social-factors-a-model-for-service-provision-for-pregnant-women-with-complex-social-factors-nice-guideline-cg110-6532362253/chapter/Overview-of-2018-surveillance-methods?tab=evidence . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Stewart E, Pearce A, Given J, Gilbert R, Brophy S, Cookson R, et al. Identifying opportunities for upstream evaluations relevant to child and maternal health: a UK policy-mapping review. Arch Dis Child. 2023;108(7):556–62.

Conry JA. Women’s health across the life course and opportunities for improvement: Every woman, every time, everywhere. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2023;160(S1):7.

Article   Google Scholar  

Khan Z, Vowles Z, Fernandez Turienzo C, Barry Z, Brigante L, Downe S, et al. Targeted health and social care interventions for women and infants who are disproportionately impacted by health inequalities in high-income countries: a systematic review. Int J Equity Health. 2023;22(1):131.

Hollowell J, Oakley L, Kurinczuk JJ, Brocklehurst P, Gray R. The effectiveness of antenatal care programmes to reduce infant mortality and preterm birth in socially disadvantaged and vulnerable women in high-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:13.

Pedersen JF, Kallesoe SB, Langergaard S, Overgaard C. Interventions to reduce preterm birth in pregnant women with psychosocial vulnerability factors-A systematic review. Midwifery. 2021;100:103018.

Knight MBK, Patel R, Shakespeare J, Kotnis R, Kenyon S, Kurinczuk JJ, on behalf of MBRRACE-UK, editors. Lessons leaned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2018–20. Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit: University of Oxford; 2022. https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/assets/downloads/mbrrace-uk/reports/maternal-report-2022/MBRRACE-UK_Maternal_MAIN_Report_2022_UPDATE.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Peace R. Social exclusion: a concept in need of definition. Soc Policy J N Z. 2001;16:17–36. https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj16/16-pages17-36.pdf . Accessed 17 May 2024.

Fitzpatrick S, Bramley G, Johnsen S. Pathways into multiple exclusion homelessness in seven UK cities. Urban Studies. 2013;50(1):148–68.

Kuh D, Ben-Shlomo Y, Lynch J, Hallqvist J, Power C. Life course epidemiology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(10):778–83.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

NHS England. Core20PLUS5 (adults) - an approach to reducing healthcare inequalities. 2023 [cited 2023 August ]. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/about/equality/equality-hub/national-healthcare-inequalities-improvement-programme/core20plus5/ .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647.

Gribble KD, Bewley S, Bartick MC, Mathisen R, Walker S, Gamble J, et al. Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and newborn care: the importance of sexed language. Front Glob Women’s Health. 2022;3:818856.

Sangsawang B, Wacharasin C, Sangsawang N. Interventions for the prevention of postpartum depression in adolescent mothers: a systematic review. Arch Womens Ment Health. 2019;22(2):215–28.

Harden A, Brunton G, Fletcher A, Oakley A. Teenage pregnancy and social disadvantage: systematic review integrating controlled trials and qualitative studies. BMJ. 2009;339:b4254.

Bottorff JL, Poole N, Kelly MT, Greaves L, Marcellus L, Jung M. Tobacco and alcohol use in the context of adolescent pregnancy and postpartum: a scoping review of the literature. Health Soc Care Community. 2014;22(6):561–74.

Chow R, Huang E, Li A, Li S, Fu SY, Son JS, et al. Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2021;21(1):18.

Esan OBAN, Saberian S, Christianson L, McHale P, Pennington A, Geary R, Ayorinde A. Mapping existing policy interventions to tackle ethnic health inequalities in maternal and neonatal health in England: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder engagement. NHS Race & Health Observatory; 2022. https://www.nhsrho.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/RHO-Mapping-existing-policy-interventions_December-2022.pdf . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey CM, Holly C, Khalil H, Tungpunkom P. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):132–40.

Endnote. EndNote. 20th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Veritas. Covidence Systematic Review Software. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation; 2021.

Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane; 2023. Accessed https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-v . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.

Bougioukas KI, Vounzoulaki E, Mantsiou CD, Savvides ED, Karakosta C, Diakonidis T, et al. Methods for depicting overlap in overviews of systematic reviews: An introduction to static tabular and graphical displays. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;132:34–45.

Lazaros B, Vanesa B, John PAI. Conducting umbrella reviews BMJ Medicine. 2022;1(1):e000071.

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, editor. John Wiley & Sons; 2011. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current . Accessed 15 May 2024.

Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, et al. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(11):1209–14.

Julian PTH, José AL-L, Betsy JB, Sarah RD, Sarah D, Jeremy MG, et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Global Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000858.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

MK is an NIHR Senior Investigator. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care. There are no other funding/sponsors to declare.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Population Health, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, NuffieldHeadington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK

N. Vousden, D. Geddes-Barton & M. Knight

Nuffield Department of Population Health, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences and Department of Oncology, Bodleian Health Care Libraries, Oxford, UK

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

NV wrote the first draft of this manuscript with input from DG, NR, and MK. MK is the guarantor for this paper and accepts responsibility for the overall integrity of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Knight .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. medline search strategy., additional file 2. prisma-p 2015 checklist., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Vousden, N., Geddes-Barton, D., Roberts, N. et al. Interventions to reduce inequalities for pregnant women living with disadvantage in high-income countries: an umbrella review protocol. Syst Rev 13 , 139 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02556-7

Download citation

Received : 31 October 2023

Accepted : 03 May 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02556-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Inequalities
• Disadvantage
• Deprivation
• Social risk
• Umbrella review
• Effectiveness

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]