Table 2

Study characteristics

Study ID	Year	Country	Programme goal*	Intervention (R or IP†)	Control group intervention	Study design	Sample size	Sample	Min age of inclusion	Mode of RDC	GBV-related outcome(s) collected through RDC	Length of follow-up(s)
Campbell et al30	2008	USA	GBV response	Sexual Assault Nurse Exams (IP)	NA	Participants were own comparison for three study arms	18	Rape survivors seeking post-assault medical forensic care	18	Telephone interview	Experiences with nursing staff during sexual assault exams	NA
Foshee et al23	2015	USA	GBV prevention	Moms and Teens for Safe Dates (R)	Nothing	RCT	409 (pairs of mothers and adolescents)	Pairs of mothers and adolescent children, where mother was exposed to IPV	12	Telephone interview	Psychological, sexual, cyber and physical victimisation; psychological, physical, sexual and cyber perpetration	9 months
McFarlane et al29	2002	USA	GBV response	Telephone intervention sessions (R)	Nothing	RCT	154	Women who qualified for protective order against an intimate partner and spoke English or Spanish	18	Telephone interview	Safety-seeking behaviours adopted by abused women	6 months
Messing et al26	2015	USA	GBV response	Lethality Assessment Program (IP)	Historical comparison group received typical police intervention	Non-equivalent groups quasi-experimental field trial using a historical comparison group	657	IPV survivors with police involvement	18	Telephone interview	Frequency and severity of repeat IPV, number of protective actions taken by survivor	7 months
Taft et al27	2016	USA	GBV prevention	Strength at Home Men’s Program (IP)	Veteran/service member and their partner given basic referrals and monitoring	RCT	135 male veterans and 111 female partners, 246 total	Male veterans and their female partners with previous or ongoing reports of male-perpetrated IPV	18	Telephone interview	Frequency of IPV (physical and psychological in the past 3 months)	6 months
Van Parys et al28	2017	Belgium	GBV response	Referral card (IP)	Received a ‘thank you’ card	Single-blind RCT	249	IPV survivors	18	Telephone interview	IPV victimisation and perpetration	10–12, and 16–18 months
Westwood et al31	2020	Australia	GBV response	Women’s Safety Contact Program (IP)	NA	Exploratory study	14	Women who previously received safety services and whose male partners had been referred to perpetrator intervention programmes	NM	Telephone interview	Experience with intervention and perceptions of safety	NA
Bragesjo et al34	2021	Sweden	GBV response	Condensed internet-delivered prolonged exposure (R)	Wait list	RCT	38	Adults exposed to a traumatic event (including sexual violence and IPV)	NM	Online survey	Recurrent intrusive thoughts related to trauma	6 months
Ford-Gilboe et al7	2020	Canada	GBV response	iCAN Plan 4 Safety (R)	Non-tailored version of the intervention	Double-blind, parallel RCT	462	Survivors	19	Online survey	Safety outcomes	3, 6 and 12 months
Hatch et al25	2019	USA	GBV prevention	Texting intervention (R)	Three text messages: (1) to confirm their phone number; (2) to ‘ensure safety’ and (3) to deliver final survey	RCT	461	College students from 3 geographically varied universities in the USA in a relationship for >6 months	19	Online survey	Experiences of IPV and perpetration of IPV	1 month
Senn and Forrest35	2015	Canada	GBV resistance	Bringing in the Bystander (IP)	Nothing	Quasi- experimental	827	Undergraduate students	16	Online survey	Perceived barriers to intervention, intentions; bystander intervention behaviours	4 months
Tarzia et al33	2017	Australia	GBV response	I-DECIDE (R)	Standard of care: basic information on IPV, emergency planning and basic resources	Pragmatic RCT	422	Women who reported fear of intimate partner or abuse from a partner	16	Online survey	Fear of partner; actions for safety and well-being.	6-month and 12-month follow-up
Glass et al24	2015	USA	GBV response	MyPlan (R)	Basic resource app providing standard safety planning services	RCT	300 women; 300 university students	College women who self-reported IPV; and friends of women who experience IPV	18	Mobile application	Use of safety strategies; decisional conflict; IPV exposure	6 and 12 months post-baseline
Sabri et al32	2019	USA	GBV response	weWomen and ourCircle (R)	Non-tailored planning information	RCT	1250	Foreign-born immigrant and refugee women or Indigenous women with IPV experience	18	Mobile application	Change in severity/frequency of physical violence	3, 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.