Search results

This study aims to explore the impact of COVID-19 on women and children in the UK who were victims of domestic abuse.

The authors draw from their experiences of working in the domestic abuse sector to reflect on the impact of lockdown restrictions on women and children, focussing on the impact of government restrictions that created an environment in which abusers could control the movement of victims.

The impact of the pandemic was significant as victims were locked into the abuse, unable to escape for fear of breaching lockdown rules. The lockdown affected victims of different forms of violence against women and girls in the UK including forced marriage and female genital mutilation, which highlighted the ramifications of intersectional inequalities for abuse victims.

This paper articulates the devastating impact of the pandemic on vulnerable women, and their fair and just access to the family courts. This paper concludes that women were failed by the government and that there was not nearly enough support from support agencies, which has left many at risk and suffering significant harm.

This paper aims to examine the use of coproduction to create a film “Do You See Me?”, to amplify the voices of a “hard to reach” group: older lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) victim-survivors of domestic abuse (DA).

Qualitative methods were used as part of the co-production, which included two practitioner focus groups and 14 narrative interviews with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning persons or the community (LGBTQ+) victim-survivors.

Despite differences in gender, sexualities, roles and “lived experiences” across stakeholders, there was a shared aim to ensure victim-survivors had a sense of ownership in this endeavour. Consequently, a positive reciprocity existed that helped to foster effective communication, allow for capacity building and subsequent knowledge exchange. The collaboration produced a nuanced meta-narrative making visible the “lived experiences” of LGB victim-survivors’ perceptions of perpetrator behaviours.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is original in two ways, firstly, providing insights into the “lived experiences” of an invisible group; older LGBTQ+ victim-survivors, and secondly, in involving them in the co-production of a film. The paper aims to reveal how interdependencies that developed between stakeholders helped to disrupt understandings, develop new ways of knowing and build levels of trust. Group interactions helped to dismantle hierarchies, so those with experiential knowledge: the survivors, had greater control throughout the research process. The paper is significant in providing a critical reflection on the ethical, methodological and resource challenges involved in co-production. It also makes recommendations for researchers and funders about the value of using co-production as a method to engage with hard-to-reach groups.

Background: Family violence (FV) is a significant problem that has a bidirectional link with mental health functioning. This research aimed to investigate family violence screening and response practices in a Victorian public adult mental health service, NorthWestern Mental Health, from the consumer perspective.

Methods: A prospective, cross-sectional, electronic consumer survey was created, utilising the Royal Melbourne Hospital Patient Survey FV screening and response tool. Data were collected over a two-month time period, via iPad. Clinicians invited all consumers (age range 18 to 64 years) attending the service to participate on data collection days, unless any of the exclusion criteria were present: a) clinical interaction occurring in a non-confidential environment; b) acute distress/crisis; c) clinician concerns about affecting rapport; and d) cognitive impairment, known disability or diminished capacity preventing them from reading or understanding the survey questions. Categorical and Likert type survey responses were explored descriptively. All variables collected in the survey were provided, specifically the percentage of responses in each category for each question. Free-text responses were analysed using qualitative description of the text-box response content.

Results: 35 consumers participated. 47% reported being screened for at least one family violence issue on at least one occasion. 26% reported disclosing FV concerns. All those disclosing felt mildly or very supported by the clinician’s response, and two-thirds received assistance they found helpful. 9% reported wanting to disclose FV concerns but not feeling comfortable to do so. Consumers indicated that FV should be spoken about more, that receiving assistance is helpful, but that responses varied in quality depending on the discipline of the clinician.

Conclusion: FV screening rates were found to be suboptimal as unmet needs were identified. Further training and services changes are required to improve screening rates, increase client comfort to disclosure, and optimise the clinical response to disclosures.