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 Scottish Government. Safer Communities Directorate

This research reports on 22 victims' and witnesses' experiences of court since the introduction of the Domestic Abuse (Scotland) Act 2018 (DASA) in April 2019. The Act aimed to expand understandings of domestic abuse, improve the criminal justice system's ability to tackle domestic abuse effectively and increase courts' capacity to protect victims, witnesses and associated children. This in-depth qualitative study contributes to a programme of work to meet the Ministerial 3-year reporting requirement of DASA (S14(2) (f)) to provide: 'information about the experience of witnesses (including witnesses who are children) at court'. Early implementation of the Act (2019-22) coincided with the advent of COVID-19, which had an unprecedented impact on those experiencing domestic abuse and the operation of the justice system; these findings should be considered in that context.

Key findings

According to the 22 adult and child victims/witnesses involved in the research:

The new law better reflects how adult victims experience domestic abuse: participants reported a range of psychological, physical and, for some, sexual harm over time. However, there was limited awareness of what constitutes criminal behaviour under DASA amongst the public (including victims/witnesses) and the professionals that participants encountered.

Many participants felt DASA and/or its provisions were under-utilised. Most reported a continued focus on single/severe incidents of physical violence rather than ongoing abuse. Many felt the justice system struggled with prosecution of psychological abuse, particularly regarding verbal, telephone and online abusive behaviour.

Most parents/child witnesses reported that harm to children was insufficiently recognised; they felt perpetrators were not held accountable for the impact that domestic abuse had on children and that children's safety and specific needs/vulnerabilities were inadequately addressed. Many victims felt that abuse of a third party – for example, family and friends – had not been taken account of adequately throughout the process.

Although there were some positive examples of reporting to the police, this was not the experience of the majority of participants. The immediate aftermath of reporting domestic abuse was a time of particular vulnerability for victims and witnesses. Most participants felt an onus was on them to keep themselves safe during this time.

Participants had inadequate knowledge of decision-making processes and the rationale for decisions made throughout the investigation and court proceedings. They cited a lack of communication, collaboration and involvement/transparency in decision-making. Far from being at the centre of the justice process, they felt on the periphery and marginalised by it.

Participants reported that going to court was difficult and, for many, frightening and traumatic. Feeling uninformed, giving evidence in an adversarial process, court adjournments and delays significantly impacted on their mental health.

Participants raised the potential for court to empower and provide a sense of closure to victims and witnesses, particularly when support and advocacy was provided.

Participants had significant concerns that the investigation, prosecution and sentencing for domestic abuse offences did not adequately reflect the sustained level, severity or impact of abuse experienced.

Safety was not consistently ensured for all participants before, during or post proceedings. This was contrary to their expectations that reporting would stop abuse and provide safety for themselves, family and friends. Non-harassment orders (NHOs) offered some protection and reassurance for victims.

Advocacy and support were reported as the most significant mechanisms for minimising trauma and enhancing feelings of safety; however, participants identified gaps in provision, particularly earlier in the process and post court.

94p.