17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Methodological and Ethical Implications of Using Remote Data Collection Tools to Measure Sexual and Reproductive Health and Gender-Based Violence Outcomes among Women and Girls in Humanitarian and Fragile Settings: A Mixed Methods Systematic Review of Peer-Reviewed Research

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose: This systematic review investigates the methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure sexual/reproductive health (SRH) and gender-based violence (GBV) outcomes among women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. Methods: We included empirical studies of all design types that collected any self-reported primary data related to SRH/GBV using information and communication technology, in the absence of in-person interactions, from women and girls in humanitarian and fragile settings. The search was run in March 2021 without filters or limits in Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Scopus. Quality was assessed using an adapted version of the MMAT tool. Two reviewers independently determined whether each full text source met the eligibility criteria, and conflicts were resolved through consensus. A-priori extraction fields concerned methodological rigor and ethical considerations. Results: 21 total studies were included. The majority of studies were quantitative descriptive, aiming to ascertain prevalence. Telephone interviews, online surveys, and mobile applications, SMS surveys, and online discussion forums were used as remote data collection tools. Key methodological considerations included the overuse of non-probability samples, lack of a defined sampling frame, the introduction of bias by making eligibility contingent on owning/accessing technology, and the lack of qualitative probing. Ethical consideration pertained to including persons with low literacy, participant safety, use of referral services, and the gender digital divide. Conclusion: Findings are intended to guide SRH/GBV researchers and academics in critically assessing methodological and ethical implications of using remote data collection tools to measure SRH and GBV in humanitarian and fragile settings.

          Related collections

          Most cited references78

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Testing the reliability and efficiency of the pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for systematic mixed studies review.

            Systematic literature reviews identify, select, appraise, and synthesize relevant literature on a particular topic. Typically, these reviews examine primary studies based on similar methods, e.g., experimental trials. In contrast, interest in a new form of review, known as mixed studies review (MSR), which includes qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies, is growing. In MSRs, reviewers appraise studies that use different methods allowing them to obtain in-depth answers to complex research questions. However, appraising the quality of studies with different methods remains challenging. To facilitate systematic MSRs, a pilot Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) has been developed at McGill University (a checklist and a tutorial), which can be used to concurrently appraise the methodological quality of qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies. The purpose of the present study is to test the reliability and efficiency of a pilot version of the MMAT. The Center for Participatory Research at McGill conducted a systematic MSR on the benefits of Participatory Research (PR). Thirty-two PR evaluation studies were appraised by two independent reviewers using the pilot MMAT. Among these, 11 (34%) involved nurses as researchers or research partners. Appraisal time was measured to assess efficiency. Inter-rater reliability was assessed by calculating a kappa statistic based on dichotomized responses for each criterion. An appraisal score was determined for each study, which allowed the calculation of an overall intra-class correlation. On average, it took 14 min to appraise a study (excluding the initial reading of articles). Agreement between reviewers was moderate to perfect with regards to MMAT criteria, and substantial with respect to the overall quality score of appraised studies. The MMAT is unique, thus the reliability of the pilot MMAT is promising, and encourages further development. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic - Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Purpose The aim of this review was to estimate the effect of COVID-19-related restrictions (i.e., stay at home orders, lockdown orders) on reported incidents of domestic violence. Methods A systematic review of articles was conducted in various databases and a meta-analysis was also performed. The search was carried out based on conventional scientific standards that are outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and studies needed to meet certain criteria. Results Analyses were conducted with a random effects restricted maximum likelihood model. Eighteen empirical studies (and 37 estimates) that met the general inclusion criteria were used. Results showed that most study estimates were indicative of an increase in domestic violence post-lockdowns. The overall mean effect size was 0.66 (CI: 0.08–1.24). The effects were stronger when only US studies were considered. Conclusion Incidents of domestic violence increased in response to stay-at-home/lockdown orders, a finding that is based on several studies from different cities, states, and several countries around the world.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                Trauma Violence Abuse
                sptva
                TVA
                Trauma, Violence & Abuse
                SAGE Publications (Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA )
                1524-8380
                1552-8324
                24 May 2022
                October 2023
                : 24
                : 4
                : 2498-2529
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Brown School, Ringgold 7548, universityWashington University in St. Louis; , St. Louis, MO, USA
                [2 ]Becker Medical Library, Ringgold 7548, universityWashington University in St. Louis; , St. Louis, MO, USA
                [3 ]Washington University School of Medicine, Ringgold 7548, universityWashington University in St. Louis; , St. Louis, MO, USA
                [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Ringgold 4257, universityQueen’s University; , Kingston ON, Canada
                [5 ]Department of Public Health Sciences, Ringgold 4257, universityQueen’s University; , Kingston, ON, Canada
                Author notes
                [*]Luissa Vahedi, Brown School, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Dr, St. Louis, MO 63130, USA. Email: l.vahedi@ 123456wustl.edu
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7112-3348
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2569-995X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8775-9735
                Article
                10.1177_15248380221097439
                10.1177/15248380221097439
                10486180
                35607868
                9b5b10b0-5ca5-42fb-869b-82f6e497ddd7
                © The Author(s) 2022

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page ( https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, FundRef https://doi.org/10.13039/501100000155;
                Award ID: SSHRC Doctoral Fellowship
                Categories
                Review Manuscripts
                Custom metadata
                ts1

                gender based violence,sexual reproductive health,humanitarian setting,fragile setting,measurement,remote data collection,ethics,systematic review

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content73

                Cited by5

                Most referenced authors1,029