By Shivi Bains, Elizabeth Dunk, Lazaros Gonidis,  Jenna Harewell,Emma Howarth, Claire Powell

  Background - The domestic violence and abuse core outcome set (DVA-COS) is an agreed set of five outcomes intended for use in evaluating interventions for children and their families with experience of domestic abuse. The purpose of a core outcome set is to harmonise outcome measurement, helping to reduce variation in outcome selection and measurement across studies, with the aim of preventing research waste. This minimum, but not exclusive, set of outcomes also aims to ensure interventions capture impact meaningful to all stakeholders, whether through routine data collection within domestic abuse services or as outcomes in trials and research evaluations. Since the development of the DVA-COS, work has been undertaken to consolidate and validate outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) to use within the core outcome set. The work reported here builds on and extends these efforts (Powell, Clark, et al., 2022; Powell, Feder, et al., 2022). Aims Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families, commissioned a programme of work, comprised of two work packages, to develop and validate OMIs for use in the DVA-COS. This report focuses on work package 1, which sought to identify and appraise measurement tools, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Process, to assess three of the five core outcomes of the DVA-COS: family relationships, feelings of safety, and freedom to go about daily life. Work package 2 sought to validate the Short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) for use with child and young people populations with experience of domestic abuse and is reported separately. Methods To meet the aim of work package 1, this project adopted a four-stage process. Within stage A, OMIs were identified through rapid reviews of the domestic abuse literature (peer-reviewed and grey) and through targeted searches of the non-domestic abuse literature; these searches were informed by concept workshops with 15 key stakeholders to highlight priority concepts within the outcomes. In stage B, candidate OMIs and their associated studies were quality appraised, using the COSMIN protocol, and the highest-scoring tools were shortlisted for assessment of their acceptability and feasibility. Feedback workshops and stakeholder votes, held within stage C, determined which tools should proceed to the consensus workshop. Concluding this process (stage D), a consensus workshop was held with 29 domestic abuse practitioners, commissioners, researchers, and survivors to allow stakeholders to discuss and reach agreement on recommending OMIs for the three outcomes. Key findings In total 144 OMIs were identified across all evidence sources and from previous work. A systematic process of conceptual mapping, quality appraisal, and examination of acceptability and feasibility issues resulted in a shortlist of 18 OMIs (seven OMIs mapping to family relationships, six mapping to feelings of safety, and five capturing freedom to go about daily life) for discussion by three stakeholder groups. Of these, eight OMIs (three OMIs for family relationships, three for feelings of safety, and two for freedom to go about daily life) progressed to the final consensus workshop. Votes held during the consensus workshop identified the Children and Families Against Domestic Abuse (CAFADA) Wellbeing and Safety as the preferred OMI to assess two outcomes: family relationships (81.5%) and feelings of safety (74.1%). A provisional recommendation for use of this tool was agreed, given that it was recently developed and so it lacks psychometric validation. Therefore it is recommended that before widespread use, this OMI is subject to further adaptation and evaluation in cooperation with the tool developers. In particular, thought is needed about the tool’s suitability for a wider range of interventions, including those supporting perinatal families or services including the person that harms. No agreement, and therefore no recommendation, was reached for an OMI capturing freedom to go about daily life. Feedback from the consensus workshop highlighted a range of positive attributes that explained the CAFADA Wellbeing and Safety’s high acceptability for use within domestic abuse contexts, such as visually appealing design, trauma-informed and strengths-based language, and the complementary adult and child versions. The consensus workshop also highlighted key areas of development such as removing gendered language, being inclusive of non-traditional family structures, and being accessible to children of different ages or cognitive maturity. Conclusion This work makes important strides towards the realisation of a DVA-COS. It establishes a consensus with respect to the provisional recommendation for use of the CAFADA Wellbeing and Safety scale, in research and practice contexts, to assess feelings of safety and family relationships. This provisional recommendation is dependent on further work being carried out to refine the tool and to evaluate its implementation in real-world contexts and in relation to different types of childand family-focused interventions. The not insignificant challenges of implementing a core outcome set are discussed, including the importance of creating trauma-informed guidance to ensure the DVA-COS adopts a care-first approach and to mitigate any unintended consequences. Key findings In total 144 OMIs were identified across all evidence sources and from previous work. A systematic process of conceptual mapping, quality appraisal, and examination of acceptability and feasibility issues resulted in a shortlist of 18 OMIs (seven OMIs mapping to family relationships, six mapping to feelings of safety, and five capturing freedom to go about daily life) for discussion by three stakeholder groups. Of these, eight OMIs (three OMIs for family relationships, three for feelings of safety, and two for freedom to go about daily life) progressed to the final consensus workshop. Votes held during the consensus workshop identified the Children and Families Against Domestic Abuse (CAFADA) Wellbeing and Safety as the preferred OMI to assess two outcomes: family relationships (81.5%) and feelings of safety (74.1%). A provisional recommendation for use of this tool was agreed, given that it was recently developed and so it lacks psychometric validation. Therefore it is recommended that before widespread use, this OMI is subject to further adaptation and evaluation in cooperation with the tool developers. In particular, thought is needed about the tool’s suitability for a wider range of interventions, including those supporting perinatal families or services including the person that harms. No agreement, and therefore no recommendation, was reached for an OMI capturing freedom to go about daily life. Feedback from the consensus workshop highlighted a range of positive attributes that explained the CAFADA Wellbeing and Safety’s high acceptability for use within domestic abuse contexts, such as visually appealing design, trauma-informed and strengths-based language, and the complementary adult and child versions. The consensus workshop also highlighted key areas of development such as removing gendered language, being inclusive of non-traditional family structures, and being accessible to children of different ages or cognitive maturity. Conclusion This work makes important strides towards the realisation of a DVA-COS. It establishes a consensus with respect to the provisional recommendation for use of the CAFADA Wellbeing and Safety scale, in research and practice contexts, to assess feelings of safety and family relationships. This provisional recommendation is dependent on further work being carried out to refine the tool and to evaluate its implementation in real-world contexts and in relation to different types of childand family-focused interventions. The not insignificant challenges of implementing a core outcome set are discussed, including the importance of creating trauma-informed guidance to ensure the DVA-COS adopts a care-first approach and to mitigate any unintended consequences

Work Package 1.   

Foundations UK: 2025. 126p.

By Emmanuel Rowlands

Male Powerlessness investigates black African men’s lived encounters with intimate partner violence (IPV) and the ways in which these men make sense of, and struggle to overcome, their unprecedented experiences of abuse at a time when research on women’s experiences of gender-based violence is expanding. In the transnational and dynamic gender environment of the City of Johannesburg, men (local and immigrant) engage in short- and long-term relationships that are typically marked by contestation and conflict. This book examines how men may become abused in heterosexual relationships, a topic that has received little attention in South African literature. The book examines the impact of IPV on black African men’s masculine identities and helps us understand the many masculine constructs that abused men may articulate. The book explores male powerlessness and its implications for men’s experiences of IPV and masculine well-being. The book makes an invaluable contribution from an empirical, methodological, and theoretical viewpoint to the corpus of gender-based violence literature that will interest students of sociology, criminology, social work, sexual politics, feminism, and critical men’s studies, among others. Emmanuel Rowlands is a Doctor of Philosophy in Sociology at the University of Johannesburg and the author of “She is trying to control me”: African Men’s Lived Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence in Johannesburg (2021), and Hegemonic Masculinity and Male Powerlessness: A Reflection on African Men’s Experiences of Intimate Partner Violence (2021), and Autoethnography, Reflexivity, and Insider Researcher Dynamics: Reflections on Investigating Violence against Men in Intimate Relationships 2022), and Constructing Victimisation as Masculine Honour: Men and Intimate Partner Violence in Johannesburg (2022).

Johannesburg, UJ Press, 2023. 288p.

By Ben Mathews, Kelsey L Hegarty, Harriet L MacMillan, Monica Madzoska, Holly E Erskine, Rosana Pacella, James G Scott, Hannah Thomas, Franziska Meinck, Daryl Higginss

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence in Australia of intimate partner violence, each intimate partner violence type, and multitype intimate partner violence, overall and by gender, age group, and sexual orientation.

Study design: National survey; Composite Abuse Scale (Revised)—Short Form administered in mobile telephone interviews, as a component of the Australian Child Maltreatment Study.

Setting: Australia, 9 April – 11 October 2021. Participants 8503 people aged 16 years or older: 3500 aged 16–24 years and about 1000 each aged 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, or 65 years or older.

Main outcome measures: Proportions of participants who had ever been in an intimate partner relationship since the age of 16 years (overall, and by gender, age group, and sexual orientation) who reported ever experiencing intimate partner physical, sexual, or psychological violence.

Results: Survey data were available for 8503 eligible participants (14% of eligible persons contacted), of whom 7022 had been in intimate relationships. The prevalence of experiencing any intimate partner violence was 44.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43.3–46.2%); physical violence was reported by 29.1% (95% CI, 27.7–30.4%) of participants, sexual violence by 11.7% (95% CI, 10.8–12.7%), and psychological violence by 41.2% (95% CI, 39.8–42.6%). The prevalence of experiencing intimate partner violence was significantly higher among women (48.4%; 95% CI, 46.3–50.4%) than men (40.4%; 95% CI, 38.3–42.5%); the prevalence of physical, sexual, and psychological violence were also higher for women. The proportion of participants of diverse genders who reported experiencing intimate partner violence was high (62 of 88 participants; 69%; 95% CI, 55–83%). The proportion of non-heterosexual participants who reported experiencing intimate partner violence (70.2%; 95% CI, 65.7–74.7%) was larger than for those of heterosexual orientation (43.1%; 95% CI, 41.6–44.6%). More women (33.7%; 95% CI, 31.7–35.6%) than men (22.7%; 95% CI, 20.9–24.5%) reported multitype intimate partner violence. Larger proportions of participants aged 25–44 years (51.4%; 95% CI, 48.9–53.9%) or 16–24 years (48.4%, 95% CI, 46.1–50.6%) reported experiencing intimate partner violence than of participants aged 45 years or older (39.9%; 95% CI, 37.9–41.9%).

Conclusions: Intimate partner violence is widespread in Australia. Women are significantly more likely than men to experience any intimate partner violence, each type of violence, and multitype intimate partner violence. A comprehensive national prevention policy is needed, and clinicians should be helped with recognising and responding to intimate partner violence.

Medical Journal of AustraliaVolume 222, Issue 9, May 2025, Pages, 423-480

Linda Elisabeth LaPinta and Mary Angela Shaughnessy

Focus on Battered Women: The book, "Sisters in Pain," highlights the stories of battered women in Kentucky who fought back against their abusers, emphasizing their struggles and resilience.

Legal and Social Challenges: It discusses the legal and social challenges these women faced, including the lack of enforcement of domestic violence laws and the societal norms that perpetuate abuse.

Personal Narratives: The book includes personal narratives and interviews with the women, providing a deep, personal look into their experiences and the impact of abuse on their lives.

Call for Change: The authors aim to raise awareness and inspire action to improve the legal and social systems that fail to protect victims of domestic violence.

University Press of Kentucky, 2014, 214 pages

By Diana E. H . Russell

Authorship: The book is authored byDiana E. H. Russell and published by Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.

Content Focus: It explores the legal, social, and personal aspects of marital rape in the United States.

Study Basis: The book is informed by a study that found 14% of interviewed women who had ever been married had been raped by a husband or ex-husband.

Historical Context: The issue of wife rape is placed within the broader context of patriarchal family structures and the historical view of wives as property

The section sets the stage for a detailed examination of the complex and often hidden crime of rape within marriage.

Indiana University Press, 1990, 412 pages