Table 2

Study characteristics

Study IDYearCountryProgramme goal*Intervention
(R or IP†)
Control group interventionStudy designSample sizeSampleMin age of inclusionMode of RDCGBV-related outcome(s) collected through RDCLength of follow-up(s)
Campbell et al302008USAGBV responseSexual Assault Nurse Exams (IP)NAParticipants were own comparison for three study arms18Rape survivors seeking post-assault medical forensic care18Telephone interviewExperiences with nursing staff during sexual assault examsNA
Foshee et al232015USAGBV preventionMoms and Teens for Safe Dates (R)NothingRCT409 (pairs of mothers and adolescents)Pairs of mothers and adolescent children, where mother was exposed to IPV12Telephone interviewPsychological, sexual, cyber and physical victimisation; psychological, physical, sexual and cyber perpetration9 months
McFarlane et al292002USAGBV responseTelephone intervention sessions (R)NothingRCT154Women who qualified for protective order against an intimate partner and spoke English or Spanish18Telephone interviewSafety-seeking behaviours adopted by abused women6 months
Messing et al262015USAGBV responseLethality Assessment Program (IP)Historical comparison group received typical police interventionNon-equivalent groups quasi-experimental field trial using a historical comparison group657IPV survivors with police involvement18Telephone interviewFrequency and severity of repeat IPV, number of protective actions taken by survivor7 months
Taft et al272016USAGBV preventionStrength at Home Men’s Program (IP)Veteran/service member and their partner given basic referrals and monitoringRCT135 male veterans and 111 female partners, 246 totalMale veterans and their female partners with previous or ongoing reports of male-perpetrated IPV18Telephone interviewFrequency of IPV (physical and psychological in the past 3 months)6 months
Van Parys et al282017BelgiumGBV responseReferral card (IP)Received a ‘thank you’ cardSingle-blind RCT249IPV survivors18Telephone interviewIPV victimisation and perpetration10–12, and 16–18 months
Westwood et al312020AustraliaGBV responseWomen’s Safety Contact Program (IP)NAExploratory study14Women who previously received safety services and whose male partners had been referred to perpetrator intervention programmesNMTelephone interviewExperience with intervention and perceptions of safetyNA
Bragesjo et al342021SwedenGBV responseCondensed internet-delivered prolonged exposure (R)Wait listRCT38Adults exposed to a traumatic event (including sexual violence and IPV)NMOnline surveyRecurrent intrusive thoughts related to trauma6 months
Ford-Gilboe et al72020CanadaGBV responseiCAN Plan 4 Safety (R)Non-tailored version of the interventionDouble-blind, parallel RCT462Survivors19Online surveySafety outcomes3, 6 and 12 months
Hatch et al252019USAGBV preventionTexting intervention (R)Three text messages: (1) to confirm their phone number; (2) to ‘ensure safety’ and (3) to deliver final surveyRCT461College students from 3 geographically varied universities in the USA in a relationship for >6 months19Online surveyExperiences of IPV and perpetration of IPV1 month
Senn and Forrest352015CanadaGBV resistanceBringing in the Bystander (IP)NothingQuasi- experimental827Undergraduate students16Online surveyPerceived barriers to intervention, intentions; bystander intervention behaviours4 months
Tarzia et al332017AustraliaGBV responseI-DECIDE (R)Standard of care: basic information on IPV, emergency planning and basic resources Pragmatic RCT422Women who reported fear of intimate partner or abuse from a partner16Online surveyFear of partner;
actions for safety and well-being.
6-month and 12-month follow-up
Glass et al242015USAGBV responseMyPlan (R)Basic resource app providing standard safety planning servicesRCT300 women; 300 university studentsCollege women who self-reported IPV; and friends of women who experience IPV18Mobile applicationUse of safety strategies;
decisional conflict;
IPV exposure
6 and 12 months post-baseline
Sabri et al322019USAGBV responseweWomen and ourCircle (R)Non-tailored planning informationRCT1250Foreign-born immigrant and refugee women or Indigenous women with IPV experience18Mobile applicationChange in severity/frequency of physical violence3, 6, 12 months post-baseline
  • *GBV response refers to interventions aimed at supporting survivors (harm mitigation, help-seeking behaviour, reporting; GBV prevention references programmes aimed at deterring GBV from occurring; and GBV resistance refers to programmes aimed at increasing the public’s intention to intervene in an incident of GBV.

  • †R=intervention delivered without in-person contact; IP=intervention involved in-person contact.

  • GBV, gender-based violence; IPV, intimate partner violence; NA, not applicable; NM, not mentioned in article; RCT, randomised controlled trial; RDC, remote data collection.