Introduction
Objective
Materials and methods
Data sources and search strategy
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Selection and data extraction
No. | Author, year | Study design | Study participants | Data collection tools used | Type of intervention | Effect of intervention on domestic violence | Effect of intervention on health |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Cripe 2010 | Randomised controlled trial (two-arm trial with individual randomisation) | 220 pregnant women attending antenatal care; aged 18–45 years old, between 12- and 26-weeks’ gestation. 110 women were randomly assigned to each intervention arm. | Modified Abuse Assessment Screen; Short Form Health Survey (SF-36); Modified Safety Behaviour Checklist; Modified community resource use assessment. | Counselling Standard intervention – details of organisations providing support Empowerment intervention – 30 min interview. | Not assessed. | Women had higher scores for physical functioning, physical and emotional scales, vitality, and social functioning at post-intervention interview. Increase in number of women who adopted safety behaviours in intervention arm (1.8 to 30.3%). Women were more likely to seek help from community resources, particularly from the church and the police. |
2. | Matseke 2013 | Pre/post-intervention | 160 pregnant women attending primary healthcare clinics for HIV post-test counselling aged 18 years or older. 160 women were assessed pre-intervention; 82 women followed up post-intervention (52.5% retention rate). | Authors own screening form; Danger Assessment Scale (20 item questionnaire). | Counselling Twenty minute one-to-one intervention and 3 months follow-up. | The pre-intervention mean danger assessment score declined significantly from 6.0 to 2.8 after 3 months (p < 0.001). | Not assessed. |
3. | Turan 2013 | Mixed methods evaluation: Cross-sectional study focus group and in-depth interviews | 134 pregnant women attending antenatal care, post-intervention evaluation: Clinic staff and community volunteers (two focus groups; n = 17, male and female) | Anonymous risk assessment form; focus group discussions and in-depth interviews using own topic guides. | Routine screening and referral programme. | Not assessed. | Community awareness on domestic violence increased; community collaboration helped to find local solutions for victims, particularly in rural and low-resource settings. The intervention aided pregnant women in accessing domestic violence services; particularly for rural women who had less access to services. 53% of women reporting violence accepted referrals to local support resources. |
4. | Krishnan 2012 | Qualitative: focus group discussions and in-depth interviews | Two study groups: 20 pregnant women attending antenatal care or in the local community, aged 18 to 30 years; and 20 mothers-in-law participants | Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews using own topic guides. | Counselling Two 3-h sessions with daughters-in-law Five 3-h sessions with mothers-in-law One joint 3-h with both. | Not assessed. | Daughter-in-laws (pregnant participants) reported an increase in family support, as relationships with their mothers-in-law had improved. |
5. | Mutisya 2018 | Quasi-experiment | 288 pregnant women attending antenatal care alone; aged 18–45 years old; in the first or second trimester of pregnancy. 144 women were randomly assigned to each intervention arm. | Abuse Assessment Screen; a modified pregnancy version of the Composite Abuse Scale; Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale. | Counselling A minimum of three 30–35 min sessions over four months. | After adjusting for baseline scores, the differences in violence and physical violence scores between the intervention and control group were significant (p < 0.001), with small effect sizes (0.196 and 0.305, respectively). | After adjusting for baseline scores, the intervention group had significantly lower mean antepartum depression scores (measured as EDPS ≥13) compared to the usual care post-intervention, F (1,280) = 106.25, p < 0.001, with a medium between the groups with an effect size of 0.500. |
6. | Akor 2019 | Single-blinded randomised controlled trial (two-arm trial with individual randomisation) | 72 pregnant women attending for antenatal care; most women aged 20–34 years old (86%), less than 34 weeks gestation. 36 women were randomly assigned to each intervention arm. | Abuse Assessment Scale; Systematic clinical outcome and routine evaluation, SCORE-15. | Counselling Three counselling sessions at two-weekly intervals; incorporated into routine antenatal visits. | Not assessed. | Family function was assessed across three dimensions: family communication, family support and family difficulty. Women in the intervention group had an improved mean family function score (2.92 0.92 to 2.16 0.63; this improvement was statistically significant (p < 0.0001). Women in the control group had an improvement in mean family score, but this change was not statistically significant (p < 0.116). |