Peer-reviewed article
Remote evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions: a rapid scoping review of tools, ethics and safety
Ilana Seff, Luissa Vahedi, Samantha McNelly, Elfriede Kormawa, Lindsay Stark ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This scoping review examines remote data collection methods used in evaluations of violence against women and girls interventions. It identifies 14 studies using telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, and discusses safety and ethical considerations for researchers conducting remote evaluations. The review finds that while remote methods can be useful, especially during crises, many studies lack clear safety verification procedures and referral pathways. The authors recommend best practices but note that no studies took place in low- and middle-income countries, limiting understanding of feasibility in resource-constrained settings.
Key points
- Fourteen eligible studies used remote data collection methods: seven telephone interviews, five online surveys, and two mobile applications
- Only eight studies established referral pathways for respondents experiencing violence
- Best practices identified include 'quick escape' buttons for online data collection, guidance on erasing browsing history, and specifying safe times for researcher contact
- Most studies mentioned asking participants to use safe devices or emails but rarely specified how this safety was verified
- No eligible studies took place in low- and middle-income countries or humanitarian settings
Limitations
This is a methodological scoping review about research methods rather than an evaluation of an intervention's effectiveness for reducing violence against women and girls. It does not provide evidence on whether any VAWG interventions actually work to improve child or women's safety outcomes.
Abstract
Although programmes and policies targeting violence against women and girls (VAWG) have increased in the past decade, there is a paucity of evidence on the effectiveness of these interventions. To expand this evidence base, researchers increasingly employ remote data collection (RDC)-including online surveys, mobile applications and telephone interviews-in their evaluations. Although RDC allows for evaluations without in-person interactions-which are restricted during crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic- information about these methods is necessary to understand their potential usefulness and limitations. This scoping review examines remote evaluations of VAWG interventions to describe the landscape of RDC methods, reflect on safety and ethical considerations, and offer best practices for RDC in VAWG research. Fourteen studies met eligibility criteria, with seven, five, and two studies employing telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, respectively. Studies commonly stated that participants were asked to use a safe email or device, but the method for verifying such safety was rarely specified. Best practices around safety included creating a 'quick escape' button for online data collection to use when another individual was present, explaining to participants how to erase browsing history and application purchases, and asking participants to specify a safe time for researchers to call. Only eight studies established referral pathways for respondents as per best practice. None of the eligible studies took place in low/middle-income countries (LMICs) or humanitarian settings, likely reflecting the additional challenges to using RDC methods in lower resource settings. Findings were used to create a best practice checklist for programme evaluators and Institutional Review Boards using RDC for VAWG interventions. The authors found that opportunities exist for researchers to safely and effectively use RDC methodologies to gather VAWG data, but that further study is needed to gauge the feasibility of these methods in LMICs and humanitarian settings.