PROTOCOL: Domestic abuse interventions for mothers in or exiting prison: An evidence and gap map

Abstract

This is the protocol for a evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: to identify existing research and gaps in evidence according to the types of interventions, settings, study design and outcomes; to use the EGM findings to inform subsequent systematic reviews and to identify gaps in evidence to inform future research, policy or practice.

Full text

DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1313
PROTOCOLS
PROTOCOL: Domestic abuse interventions for mothers
in or exiting prison: An evidence and gap map
Michaela Rogers
1
|Kelly Lockwood
2
|Elizabeth Speake
3
|Fiona Campbell
4
1
Department of Sociological Studies, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
2
School of Health & Society, University of Salford, Salford, UK
3
CRESA, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield, UK
4
School of Health and Related Research, The University of Newcastle, Sheffield, UK
Correspondence
Michaela Rogers, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK.
Email: m.rogers@sheffield.ac.uk
Abstract
This is the protocol for a evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: to
identify existing research and gaps in evidence according to the types of
interventions, settings, study design and outcomes; to use the EGM findings to
inform subsequent systematic reviews and to identify gaps in evidence to inform
future research, policy or practice.
1|BACKGROUND
1.1 |Introduction
1.1.1 |The problem, condition or issue
Around 714,000 women and girls are held in penal institutions
throughout the world, accounting for around 7% of the global prison
population (World Prison Brief, 2017). Although they remain a
minority in the global prison population, the number of women and
girls in prison has increased, in all continents, by about 50% since the
year 2000 (World Prison Brief, 2017). A UK‐based review of women's
imprisonment, the Corston Report (Home Office, 2007) contributed
to a greater recognition worldwide that there needs to be a distinct
approach to women in prison (Finer, 2020). Chartrand and Kilty
(Chartrand & Kilty, 2017) note that the most significant influence of
the report in Canada relates to recognition of the need for integrated
holistic and gender sensitive responses to women who encounter the
criminal justice system. Similarly, in Australia, Stubbs and Baldry
(Stubbs & Baldry, 2017) note how the report revived interest and
consequent pressure from advocates, campaigners, and prison staff
to transform women's prisons with particular attention to the
structural issues leading to the imprisonment of women. The Corston
Report led to the creation of the United Nations Rules for the
Treatment of Female Prisoners and Non‐Custodial Measures for
Women Offenders (known as the ‘Bangkok Rules’) adopted by the
UN General Assembly in 2010 (UNODC, 2014). The Bangkok Rules is
a set of 70 principles for the gender‐sensitive support of female
offenders and prisoners. The rules also advocated for the provision of
more community‐based alternatives to custody. However, 10 years
after their adoption, an analysis of the global female prison
population found a global increase, not a decrease, of 105,000 more
women in prison (Prison Reform International, 2020).
Estimates of women in prison who are mothers are mostly high
(Prison Reform Trust, 2017) although international comparisons are
difficult owing to the differences in and limited reporting mechanisms
and variations in definitions of ‘mother’and who constitutes a ‘child’
(Codd, 2020). For example, in Finland, Enroos (2011) identifies a lack
of systematic information with the parenting status unrecorded for
73% of prisoners. Equally, Codd (2020) notes that mothers may be
unwilling to disclose that they have children owing to concerns as to
the outcomes, including child protection intervention. Therefore,
much of the available data is based on estimates. In America, it is
estimated that between 65% and 80% of women in prison are
Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2023;19:e1313. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/cl2
|
1of12
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1313
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Campbell Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Campbell Collaboration.

mothers of minor children (Casey‐Acevedo et al., 2004). In Australia,
it is estimated that almost half of women in prison have at least one
child aged under 16 years (Newman et al., 2011). However,
significant variations in terms of ethnicity are identified with Sullivan
et al. (Sullivan et al., 2019) identifying that more than 80% of
Aboriginal women in prison in Australia are mothers. Codd (2020)
also notes that the numbers of children experiencing the imprison-
ment of a mother varies, reflecting the average birth rate per mother
in each country.
Separation from their children may be especially difficult for
women in prison who have been victims of violence (Casey‐Acevedo
et al., 2004). This is significant as women in prison tend to have
complex needs and multiple disadvantages. For example, in England
and Wales, the Ministry of Justice (Ministry of Justice, 2012) identify
women in prison as being more likely to have experienced: trauma
throughout their lifetime; physical, emotional and/or sexual abuse as
children; state or public care arrangements as a child; and to have
witnessed violence in the home. In Spain, Valenzuela and Alcázar‐
Campos (2019) draw on research to estimate that around 50% of
women in prison have experienced domestic violence and abuse
(DVA). In America, research indicates that at 70%–90%, women in
prison are significantly more likely to have experienced DVA in their
pre‐prison relationships in comparison to women in the general
population at around 36% (Jones, 2020). The Prison Reform Trust
(2017) indicates that around 57% of women in prison in England and
Wales have experienced DVA. Day and Gill, 2020 note that DVA
manifests in various ways in socioeconomic groups and cultural
contexts, and experiences of abuse and victimhood are shaped by
victims' intersectional identities and locations. They go on to suggest
that there are additional challenges for BME women that compound
their experiences of DVA. Recognising and responding to these
structural inequalities is particularly relevant when exploring DVA in
relation to women in prison, as this subgroup are some of the most
marginalised women in society; women of colour and those from
lower socioeconomic backgrounds are over‐represented within the
women's prison population in most western societies.
Recent research in the United States (US) has explored the
pathways between women's experiences of DVA and their criminalisa-
tion. Jones (Jones, 2020) identified how women's imprisonment was
often owing to them reportedly being forced by an abusive partner to
either participate in an offence or take responsibility for an offence
they had not committed. Jones (Jones, 2020) found that women may
also engage in violent behaviour as a means of self‐defence; whilst
Durfee and Goodmark (Durfee and Goodmark, 2021) found that male
abusers may also file a complaint, which they termed ‘cross‐filings’,to
lever the legal system, leaving women more vulnerable to arrest,
charge and potential imprisonment. For women in prison, DVA can
inform how they engage with and respond to interventions (Ministry
of Justice, 2018). In a European‐wide study exploring women
prisoners, mental health, violence and abuse, Macdonald (2013)
identified that those who had experienced DVA found prison life
more difficult to manage. Macdonald (Macdonald, 2013) indicated that
for many women the prison environment was infantilising, removing
autonomy and demanding complicity, which was reminiscent of their
previous experiences of abuse.
This was echoed in a UK study by Crewe et al. (2017), which
found that loss of power, autonomy and control was a significant
challenge for women in prison. Women struggled with loss of control
of their intimate daily practices, nutrition, clothing and ability to
maintain contact with their children. They suggested that the feelings
of powerlessness reproduced many of the dynamics of abuse they
had previously experienced. DVA may also affect a mother's
experience of and responses to imprisonment. Contact may be
restricted or denied by the carer of children of a mother in prison, as
a means of further punishing or controlling the mother (Flynn, 2014).
Equally, contact may be restricted or limited if social services
intervention has occurred before the mother's sentence. The
combined experiences of DVA, imprisonment, and separation from
their children can be traumatic, trapping mothers in a ‘vicious cycle of
victimisation and criminal activity’(Prison Reform Trust, 2017, p. 4).
Mothers in prison can experience shame, hopelessness and failure
which can trigger a return to self‐destructive behaviours which, after
release from prison, may impact successful resettlement and
reunification (Baldwin, 2017; Macdonald, 2013). In the United States,
Hart‐Shuford et al. (Shuford et al., 2018) found the experience of
physical partner abuse to be a significant risk factor for depression
during release from prison, having implications for successful
resettlement. Similarly, commenting on the Spanish context, Valen-
zuela and Alcazar‐Campos (Valenzuela‐Vela and Alcazar‐Campos,
2019) argue that with limited support on release, many women will
have to return to their violent partners. It is important to bear in mind
that the limited evidence in this area illustrates a correlation between
DVA and maternal incarceration rather than DVA being a cause
leading to criminal justice involvement.
1.1.2 |The interventions
This evidence and gap map (EGM) is focused on interventions in
which the primary aim is to address historic or current domestic
violence and abuse and its impacts and which are targeted at or
available to mothers who are in, exiting, or have recently exited
prison (within a 12‐month timeframe and who are subsequently
released on license and subject to mandatory license conditions, such
as attending appointments with an offender manager). Globally, the
body of evidence on empirically validated interventions for DVA is
sparse in terms of women in the criminal justice system and
particularly for different groups of victim‐survivors of DVA (Trabold
et al., 2020). Interventions included in this EGM will therefore
comprise a variety of services and programmes which can occur in
any setting including, but not limited to, criminal justice settings,
domestic and sexual violence support services, women's centres,
accommodation‐based services, outreach services, and remotely via
technology platforms. The content, mode and manner of delivery and
length of the intervention may differ in each of the studies to be
included as there is no standard evidence‐based programme for
2of12
|
ROGERS ET AL.

addressing DVA for women or mothers in, exiting, or recently
released from prison. The content of an intervention, for example,
might be based around challenging beliefs about DVA, building self‐
esteem and resilience, or developing positive relationship skills.
Interventions will therefore also likely be diverse in terms of
theoretical underpinnings. It is important to identify relevant
theory/theories which underpin interventions and it is important to
understand how the intervention works in another context, within a
particular setting or with a particular subgroup of mothers (women of
colour for example). Models of care may also differ depending on the
service provider (including statutory bodies and charities). An
indicative list of the types of interventions to be included in the
review is shown in Table 1.
How the intervention might work
A DVA intervention may work in the following ways:
•Offering ongoing social and emotional support.
•Increasing individualised safety planning and risk assessment of
frequency, severity, and types of violence and abuse.
•Enabling skills in conflict resolution.
•Providing impartial information and education to improve
informed decision‐making.
•Improving mental health outcomes and general wellbeing.
The mechanism for change may vary, such as increased social and
emotional support leading to reduced DVA. Other interventions might
demonstrate outcomes by recording victim‐survivor self‐reporting of
mental health outcomes. The mechanism for improvement of the
mental health of victim‐survivors derives from the practical and
emotional support provided to alleviate the effects of DVA and
support safety planning (e.g., in advocacy intervention) (Ferrari
et al., 2018). In a complex intervention, such as trauma‐focussed
counselling or therapy, which is grounded in dialogue (i.e., a talking
therapy), the mechanism for change might be the opportunity for the
victim‐survivor to recognise prior experiences as abuse and, as such,
can be experienced as empowering (Petrillo, 2021). The proximal
change may be increased self‐esteem and confidence leading to
changes in decision‐making and subsequently reduced DVA.
The theoretical foundation for an intervention could draw from a
number of approaches, including (but not limited to) feminist principles,
empowerment theory, psychosocial theory, and strengths‐or asset‐
based approaches. The UK's National Offender Management Service
(NOMS) identifies several types of intervention that are likely to be
effective for improving the mental health of female offenders and
managing the impacts of DVA, including: advocacy interventions; social
support; mentoring; trauma‐focussed cognitive‐behavioural pro-
grammes; and short‐term trauma‐focussed counselling (NOMS, 2015,
p. 16). A commonly found theoretical model underpinning DVA
interventions is the Duluth Model. The Duluth Model (named after
the US city where it was developed) is built using feminist theory which
centres the notion that male violence against women and children
results from gender inequality and male dominance. It embeds a
conceptualisation of power and control at the heart of DVA
perpetration. The Duluth Model, therefore, is predicated on putting
victim‐survivor safety and perpetrator accountability at the centre of all
TABLE 1 Typology of interventions.
Type of intervention Description Example
Advocacy Interventions inform victim‐survivors of their rights, and the services available
to them. Activities might include emotional and practical support, impartial
advice, general information relating to criminal justice pathways and safety
planning.
Domestic Violence Advocates or
Advisors
Psychosocial and skill‐
building
Group or individual programmes that use education and training to improve
awareness, knowledge, and/or skills related to DVA or parenting among a
group of individuals (e.g., female offenders, mothers, etc).
The Freedom Programme You and
Me, Mum
Therapeutic support Group or individual counselling that provides victim‐survivors of violence with
emotional, psychological and social support.
Trauma‐informed counselling,
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
Outreach Outreach support for victim‐survivors deemed to be at low‐medium risk of
harm from DVA. Interventions include home visits, emotional and practical
support, impartial advice, general information relating to criminal justice
pathways and safety planning. Interventions inform victim‐survivors of their
rights, and the services available to them, and improve knowledge of the
different forms, risk factors, and consequences of violence.
Outreach visits, home visitation
Peer support Group or individual support where people use their own experiences to help
another. Support includes sharing knowledge or experiences and includes
emotional, social or practical help. It commonly refers to an initiative
consisting of trained supporters, and can take a number of forms such as
peer mentoring, reflective listening, or counselling.
Local mentoring schemes, peer
groups
Technology‐based
intervention
Support provided using mobile, wireless and web‐based platforms, such as
through smartphone apps, text messaging, and online support.
isafe, iCan Plan for Safety
ROGERS ET AL.
|
3of12

procedures and interventions (Taylor & Sullivan, 2008). The model
requires a coordinated, multi‐agency approach which develops connec-
tion and consistency between agencies to ensure a robust safety net for
victim‐survivors (Taylor & Sullivan, 2008). Tools developed by the
coordinating body of the Duluth Model, Domestic Abuse Intervention
Programs (DAIP) have been widely replicated for use by interven-
tion programmes across the United States and internationally. Such
programmes include information on mothering and nurturing children
after DVA. The work of Evan Stark (Stark, 2007) on coercive control and
the gender inequality which underlies DVA also informs many
interventions. Stark highlights the impact of non‐physical, as well
as physical, abuse and the primacy of intimidation, isolation and control
as a patterning of abusive behaviour arguing that intervention models
basedonanincident‐specific understanding of DVA obscures the major
components, dynamics and effects of abuse (Stark, 2007,pp.9–10).
1.1.3 |Why it is important to develop the EGM
Research shows that the female prison population is increasing
(World Prison Brief, 2017). A significant proportion has current or
historic trauma and experiences DVA and a similar proportion are
mothers to dependent children (Codd, 2020; McCauley et al., 2020).
Research also shows us that DVA and prison disrupt mothering and
the mother‐child relationship (Lockwood, 2017). This EGM will
describe DVA interventions in prison and for mothers on their
release from prison looking at evidence over a wide range of
outcomes. This is important as research suggests that understanding
of the intersection of mothering, women's criminalisation and DVA is
little understood (Roberts, 2019). It is also important as no review to‐
date has specifically focused on DVA interventions for mothers who
are in prison or recently exited.
An intersectional lens will explore mothers as a diverse group
paying attention to differences in social characteristics and back-
grounds (e.g., ethnicity, asylum and migration status, age and
disability). The analysis and our final reporting will be mindful of
impacts and changes to the policy and practice environment due to
Covid‐19 (the global pandemic).
This EGM will generate more informed understanding of the
existing support available to mothers in, exiting or recently released
from prison, and what is missing (Prison Reform Trust, 2017). The
social benefits of generating a better understanding of the intersec-
tion of DVA and contact with the criminal justice system are
numerous including better targeted support, improved engagement
with services, reduced offending, reduced rates of DVA and better
outcomes for children impacted by maternal imprisonment.
2|OBJECTIVES
The primary objective of this EGM is to present the existing research
on the impact of interventions that address domestic abuse for
mothers who are in, exiting, or have recently been released from
prison, mapping what types of interventions have been evaluated,
what study designs have been used, and what outcomes have been
measured. This will provide the foundation for subsequent systematic
reviews that will explore what types of interventions work, for whom,
and in which contexts. It will describe the quality of available evidence,
highlight the gaps to inform future research priorities and to enable a
more comprehensive understanding of the available knowledge of this
topic. Specifically, this EGM will include the following objectives:
•To identify existing research and gaps in evidence according to the
types of interventions, settings, study design and outcomes.
•To use the EGM findings to inform subsequent systematic
reviews.
•To identify gaps in evidence to inform future research, policy or
practice.
3|METHODS
3.1 |EGM: Definition and purpose
Saran and White (2018) define an EGM as ‘a systematic [visual]
presentation of the availability of relevant evidence for a particular
policy domain. The evidence is identified by a search following a pre‐
specified, published search protocol. The map may be accompanied
by a descriptive report to summarize the evidence for stakeholders
such as researchers, research commissioners, policy makers, and
practitioners’(p. 11). An important distinction to note is that EGMs
summarise what evidence exists but not what the evidence says. For
instance, an EGM describes studies in a particular policy area in terms
of outcomes and interventions.
EGMs are useful in identifying evidence gaps, collections of
studies for review, and an EGM will identify where there is a need for
more research or rigorous evaluation. They can be used to generate
higher‐level evidence products such as guidelines or in the develop-
ment of interventions. Traditional methods adopted for EGMs
include a focus on quantitative data only. However, there are EGMs
that set a new precedent as these include different research designs
and qualitative data (Tallent et al., 2022) as this EGM will do (see
‘Treatment of qualitative research’).
3.2 |Framework development and scope
Development of the framework is considered to be the most
important, and can be, the most difficult part of developing an
evidence map (White et al., 2020). The framework provides the
structure of the EGM and is one of the first activities and is a primary
resource in the development of search strategy, screening and coding
tools (Apunyo et al., 2022). The framework for this EGM will follow a
typical matrix of intervention categories (rows) and outcomes
(columns). Where reported, we will extract information on service
user perspectives as well as process and implementation factors.
4of12
|
ROGERS ET AL.

3.3 |Stakeholder engagement
The framework was developed following consultation with an expert
Advisory Group constituted by members from relevant fields in the
UK. Specifically, members included:
•Research manager from a national domestic abuse charity.
•Member of a national campaigning prison charity.
•Research Support Officer from the Ministry of Justice.
•Regional manager from a women's alliance organisation.
•Research Manager for the Justice arm of a national funding body.
Members of the group commented on the draft protocol leading
to refinement and clarification to the protocol as well as redefined
outcomes of interest. The intervention and outcome framework was
developed from a review of literature and examination of key policy
documents.
3.4 |Conceptual framework
The conceptual underpinning of the development of the framework
draws upon the socio‐ecological model which helps to identify
and explain the multidimensional aspects of domestic abuse
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979), in particular to help map interventions and
outcomes across individual, community and society (Figure 1). The
socio‐ecological model is commonly used in interpersonal violence
research.
The socio‐ecological approach proposes that human beings are
embedded in nested systems related to context and progressively
adapt to accommodate to their environment over time. Individuals
are affected by, and in turn affect their environments. In addition,
reciprocal causation is present, which means individual behaviour
moulds, and is moulded by, environment (Phelan & Kirwan, 2020).
Thus, the socio‐ecological model allows an integration of individual
and environmental factors to enable an examination of interventions
and outcomes within complex systems.
3.5 |Dimensions
The outcomes axis of the framework for this EGM will be based on
the following dimensions:
•DVA victimisation or revictimisation
•Agency and self‐efficacy in relation to relationships, conflict and
abuse
•Social and gender norms in relation to relationships, conflict and
abuse
•Risk and safety planning
•Reoffending rates
•Wellbeing (general or overall mental/emotional/psychological
health)
•Substance misuse
•Safer accommodation
•Mothering and parenting practice
•Mother–child relationship
•Acceptability of interventions
We will code any information related to process and implemen-
tation factors noted in the studies. We will be involving our
stakeholders as we refine our framework. The socio‐ecological model
will inform our framework. Interventions will be categorised on level
of intervention (women, criminal justice system, wider society). We
will also use the theoretical mechanism underpinning their action to
further group the types of interventions. Further categories in our
framework will include the settings in which it was delivered, the
agencies involved, and the target (DVA or DVA and another factor).
We will be undertaking further stakeholder engagement in the
process of refining the framework. We may include filters such as:
age, socioeconomic status, nature of the abuse, age of children as
guided. We will also include country as a coding domain.
3.5.1 |Types of study design
The EGM will include primary studies and evaluations of the
effectiveness of interventions that aim to address DVA experienced
by mothers in or exiting prison (see Table 2). An impact evaluation is
defined as any intervention evaluation that uses qualitative,
quantitative or mixed methods design applied to experimental or
observational data that measures the effect of an intervention
compared to what would happen to the same group in the absence of
that intervention.
FIGURE 1 Sociological ecological model.
ROGERS ET AL.
|
5of12

To include both completed and ongoing impact evaluations and
systematic reviews, we will search trial registries and protocols.
Authors will be contacted for a timescale of their project to ascertain
if the timescale of data collection is within or outside the timescale
for this EGM. If outside of this timescale, it will not be included in
the current EGM, but reference to the study will be noted for future
updates of the EGM.
Inclusion criteria
1. Randomised controlled trial (RCTs): Studies where participants are
randomly allocated to control and intervention conditions.
2. Quasi‐RCTs: Studies in which participants are allocated to control
and intervention groups through a quasi‐random approach (e.g.,
through the order of recruitment).
3. Quasi‐experimental studies: Studies where participants in the
intervention and control conditions are assigned to conditions in a
non‐random manner (e.g., study participants self‐select or are
already located in groups).
4. Mixed method studies of all design types (e.g., explanatory, or
exploratory design) will be included. These are studies which
include both a quantitative and qualitative component.
5. Qualitative studies with approaches to research design such as
phenomenology, ethnography, narrative and grounded theory, will
be eligible for inclusion.
Any limitations, biases, ethical or safety issues associated with
any study design will be examined in relation to their potential impact
on the effectiveness or acceptability of the intervention and validity
of the study's findings. We will include pilot or proof‐of‐concept
studies or impact/process evaluations including quantitative or
qualitative data. We will not limit our inclusion criteria to RCTs or
comparator studies. Where we will be including comparative studies,
we will consider any type of comparator including; no intervention
and an alternative intervention.
Studies will be full‐text accessible, deposited in published or
unpublished repositories, with no date limitations. Where the full‐
text cannot be located, these will not be excluded but listed in
‘studies awaiting classification’. If studies are published in language
other than English, we will attempt to assess eligibility, access a full
translation or include (if relevant) by using the Google Translate tool.
3.5.2 |Treatment of qualitative research
This EGM will include qualitative research if it meets the inclusion
criteria and fits within the intervention‐outcomes framework; that is,
we will include a document if it is a qualitative empirical study
focused on an eligible intervention. This will include projects that are
entirely qualitative or ones which are part of a mixed‐methods
design. Qualitative data collection such as interviews, focus groups,
observation, and participatory designs will be considered in the EGM.
This includes qualitative research where data is collected on the
perspectives and experiences of service users or service providers.
This research may relate to the barriers or facilitators to the
effectiveness of interventions and also the accessibility and
acceptability of interventions.
We will consider the following publication types as ineligible
and these will therefore be excluded: (1) opinion pieces; (2)
commentaries; (3) editorials; (4) debates; (5) project implementation
guidelines; (6) other reflective non‐research based reports and
(7) systematic and non‐systematic reviews (albeit if systematic and
non‐systematic reviews are sourced, these would be used for
citation searching).
3.5.3 |Types of intervention/problem
This EGM will examine interventions aimed at distinct needs relating
to abuse experiences, impacts and trauma. As such, intervention
types will include individual, group or programme‐based interven-
tions (as per the typology detailed in Table 1) addressing DVA and its
impacts. Interventions may use various forms of delivery approaches,
including different approaches to facilitation (professional or peer‐
led) and intervention characteristics such as this will be coded within
the framework.
3.5.4 |Types of population
The population of interest is limited to study participants who are
mothers either in, exiting or recently released from prison (within a
12‐month timeframe and who are subsequently on probation), with
current or past experience of DVA. The United Nations (n.d., online)
TABLE 2 PICO Framework.
P Population Women (aged 16 years or older) who identify as mothers, as victim‐survivors of DVA, and who are offenders either in,
exiting, or recently released from prison.
I/E intervention/exposure Any intervention identifiable in our typology that addresses DVA (physical, sexual, psychological or emotional abuse,
financial and material abuse), current or previous, or mothering.
C Comparator No intervention.
O Outcome DVA victimisation; social and relationship norms; increase in self‐efficacy in relation to relationships, conflict and
abuse; risk and safety planning; parenting; mother‐child relationships; health including substance misuse and
mental health.
6of12
|
ROGERS ET AL.

defined DVA as ‘a pattern of behavior in any relationship that is used
to gain or maintain power and control over an intimate partner.
Abuse is physical, sexual, emotional, economic or psychological
actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This
includes any behaviors that frighten, intimidate, terrorize, manipulate,
hurt, humiliate, blame, injure, or wound someone’. In recognition that
the age of criminal liability and age that a female offender may be
sent to prison will differ across countries, we will not use a minimum
age restriction. We will include studies where participants reflect a
range of ethnicities, sexual and gender minorities, and ages, as well as
pregnant or single mothers, and mothers from low or middle‐income
countries. We will include studies which include samples of females
and mothers combined. We shall make it clear in our coding
framework so that studies with mixed populations can be differenti-
ated from other studies.
We will exclude: studies that evaluate interventions that do not
address DVA with participants; perpetrator focused studies; studies
that do not include female offenders; studies that focus on violence
and assault by strangers, or where it is not possible to discern the
relationship between victim‐survivor and perpetrator; studies that
are based in settings outside of our inclusion criteria in terms of the
participant group. Studies will be excluded if the extent of focus on
mothers in, exiting, or recently released from prison is unclear. If a
study meets the inclusion criteria, but only a subset of the population
is eligible for inclusion (e.g., some participants are in prison and others
on community‐based orders), we will include only the eligible
population if the data are disaggregated. Where the data are
combined within the study, we will contact study authors to request
the relevant disaggregated data. If we are unable to obtain such data,
we will exclude the study.
3.5.5 |Types of outcome measures
This EGM aims to scope the impact of DVA interventions for mothers
in or exiting prison. Outcome measures of interest are:
•DVA victimisation or revictimisation (e.g., self‐reported experience
of DVA, official data such as police calls‐for‐service)
•Agency and self‐efficacy in relation to relationships, conflict and
abuse (recorded in intervention evaluation, or self‐assessment)
•Social and gender norms in relation to relationships, conflict and
abuse (recorded in intervention evaluation, or self‐assessment)
•Risk and safety planning (prison records, prison or probation case
management records)
•Reoffending rates (recorded as crime to the police, probation
records, or self‐reported offending following exit from prison)
•Wellbeing (general or overall mental/emotional/psychological
health)
•Substance misuse (changes in use recorded in prison records, or
through self‐reports to intervention facilitators/self‐assessment)
•Safer accommodation (permanent housing, supported
accommodation)
•Mothering and parenting practice (self reports of increased
contact with children, improved parenting skills recorded in self‐
assessment)
•Mother–child relationship (self reports of increased contact
leading to change in relationship, self‐assessment, or recorded in
intervention evaluation)
Outcomes may be measured through validated or standardised
instruments (e.g., an Outcome Star, an outcome measure that uses
scaling techniques (e.g., 1–10) undertaken by a professional or
through self‐assessment) or other non‐standardised tools (e.g., self‐
reports). In the case of qualitative research, we will include individual,
narrative accounts that report perspectives and/or experiences in
relation to any aspects of DVA in the target population, including, but
not limited to, those being measured quantitatively. We will
document any unintended adverse events reported, whether
quantified or reported qualitatively, and code into the EGM.
Types of location/situation
No limitations will be placed on the country of study; for example,
low and middle‐income countries.
Types of settings
Interventions may occur in prison or be community‐based after
recipients have exited prison. Community‐based settings include
criminal justice settings (e.g., prison, or the probation service for
women subject to mandatory license conditions, such as attending
appointments with an offender manager), domestic and sexual
violence support services, women's centres, accommodation‐based
services, outreach services and other community‐based settings.
3.6 |Search methods and sources
This EGM will search for and include completed primary studies and
evaluations. We will include published studies with no language
restrictions to minimise publication bias. For studies written in a
language other than English, we will attempt to obtain a complete
translation or use Google Translate. We will seek advice from the
subject librarians within the University library.
3.6.1 |Search terms
Keywords and terms have been derived from the scoping search and
researcher expertise in the subject fields. Searches in each database
will be expanded or restricted using Boolean operators (e.g., OR,
AND), wildcards (e.g.,?), truncations (e. Including *) and by using
limiting commands to narrow the results (e.g., ‘year of publication’).
This will ensure search precision and sensitivity. An example of a
search using the Boolean configuration for ‘intervention’AND
‘domestic violence and abuse’AND ‘women’AND ‘imprisonment’is
provided in Table 3.
ROGERS ET AL.
|
7of12

3.6.2 |Search sources
Relevant studies will be identified through searches in electronic
databases, governmental and grey literature repositories, hand search
in specific targeted journals, harvest referencing and internet search
engines.
The following databases will be searched to identity studies:
Electronic databases
•Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ProQuest)
•Criminal Justice Abstracts (EBSCO)
•Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature
(CINAHL) (EBSCO)
•Dissertations and Theses Global (ProQuest)
•EMBASE (Ovid)
•National Criminal Justice Reference Service Abstracts (ProQuest)
•JSTOR
•Medline (Ovid)
•PsycInfo (Ovid)
•PubMed (Ovid)
•ClinicalTrials.gov
•International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO): https://
www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform
•Conference Proceedings Index (Web of Science)
•Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science)
•Social Sciences Citation Index (Web of Science)
•Social Science Premium Collection (ProQuest)
•SCOPUS
•National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): https://
www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/#/
•ClinicalTrials.gov
•International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO): https://
www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform
Governmental and grey literature search
Grey literature, such as policy documents and empirical reports from
non‐academic sources, will be identified by searching the websites of
relevant specialist organisations, including:
•United Nations https://www.un.org/
•UN Women https://www.unwomen.org/en
•World Health Organization https://www.who.int/
•The EU Fundamental Rights Agency https://fra.europa.eu/en
•Women Against Violence Europe https://wave-network.org/
•End Violence Women Against International https://evawintl.org/
•Global Network of Women's Shelters https://gnws.org/
•ANROWS https://www.anrows.org.au/
•Australian Institute of Criminology https://www.aic.gov.au/
•National Institute of Justice Crime Solutions https://crimesolutions.
ojp.gov/
•What Works Crime Reduction Toolkit https://www.college.police.
uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit
•Her Majesty's Prison and Probation Service www.gov.uk
TABLE 3 Example search.
Intervention/Evaluation DVA Women/Maternal Imprisonment
TS = (cohort* OR ‘cross‐sectional’OR
effect* OR efficac* OR evaluat*
OR evidence OR experiment* OR
impact* OR interven* OR ‘mixed‐
method*’OR ‘mixed method*’
OR prevent* OR program* OR
qualitative OR ‘quasi experimen*’
OR ‘quasi‐experiment*’OR
‘quasi‐random*’OR ‘quasi
random*’OR ‘quasi RCT’OR
‘quasi‐rct’OR random* OR
response* OR service* OR
support* OR therap* OR
treatment* OR trial* OR ‘what
works’)
TS = (‘coercive control’OR ‘intimate
terrorism’OR ‘violence against women’
OR ‘battered wom?n’) OR TS = (gender*
NEAR/3 violen*) OR TS = (sex* NEAR/3
abus) TS = (sex* NEAR/3 assault) OR
TS = (sex* NEAR/3 violen*) OR
TS = (couple* NEAR/3 abus*) OR
TS = (couple* NEAR/3 assault*) OR
TS = (couple* NEAR/3 violen*) OR
TS = (domestic* NEAR/3 abus*) OR
TS = (domestic* NEAR/3 assault*) OR
TS = (domestic* NEAR/3 violen*) OR
TS = (intimate* NEAR/3 abus*) OR
TS = (intimate* NEAR/3 assault*) OR
TS = (intimate* NEAR/3 violen*) OR
TS = (interpersonal* NEAR/3 abus*) OR
TS = (interpersonal* NEAR/3 assault*)
OR TS = (interpersonal* NEAR/3
violen*) OR TS = (partner* NEAR/3
abus*) OR TS = (partner* NEAR/3
assault*) OR TS = (partner* NEAR/3
violen*) OR TS = (relation* NEAR/3
abus*) OR TS = (relation* NEAR/3
assault*) OR TS = (relation* NEAR/3
violen*) OR TS = (spous* NEAR/3 abus*)
OR TS = (spous* NEAR/3 assault*) OR
TS = (spous* NEAR/3 violen*)
TS = (mother* OR
maternal OR
women OR female*
OR wife OR wives)
TS = (correction* OR criminal* OR
custod* OR detain* OR
detention* OR felon* OR gaol*
OR imprison* OR incarcerat* OR
inmate* OR jail* OR offender*
OR prison*)
8of12
|
ROGERS ET AL.

•Prison Research Centre https://www.prc.crim.cam.ac.uk/
•Correctional Service Canada https://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/index-en.
shtml
•New Zealand Corrective Services https://www.corrections.
govt.nz/
•The American Society of Criminology Division on Corrections and
Sentencing https://ascdcs.org/
•Australian Institute of Criminology https://www.aic.gov.au/
about-us
•Urban Institute https://www.urban.org/
Whilst noting that a limitation of this approach (mostly concerns
of quality), we will include grey literature to decrease the likelihood of
publication bias (Vevea & Woods, 2005) as well as contact relevant
individuals and organisations for information about unpublished or
ongoing studies. The use of non‐peer‐reviewed resources will be kept
to a minimum and subject to quality appraisal.
Internet search
A web‐based search will be undertaken to identify further supple-
mentary sources using Google Scholar. The Publish or Perish desktop
app (https://harzing.com/resources/publish-or-perish) will be used to
manage the results of Google Scholar searches in a systematic way
for entry into EPPI‐Reviewer.
Hand search
The table of contents of the relevant international journals will be
searched to identify relevant primary studies eligible for inclusion.
This includes:
•Violence Against Women;
•the Journal of Interpersonal Violence;
•the International Journal on Criminology;
•the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology;
•Journal of Experimental Criminology;
•Criminology;
•Journal of Aggression Maltreatment & Trauma;
•Journal of Interpersonal Violence;
•Journal of Quantitative Criminology;
•Trauma Violence & Abuse.
We will undertake sufficient hand searching so that any recent
publications that were not captured in the search are identified. We
will therefore search the last two volumes before our search dates, of
the journals highlighted.
Citation search
We will conduct citation searching on the studies identified for
analysis, as well as searching the reference lists of systematic reviews
identified in the database and internet searches detailed above.
Citation searching in this regard means harvesting references from
included studies.
3.7 |Analysis and presentation
3.7.1 |Report structure
The EGM will include the following sections: an executive summary;
background; objectives; methods; results; and discussion. We will
include an executive summary to provide an overview of the EGM
findings. We will explain the issue of current or historic DVA for
mother in prison and on their release from prison in the background
section, explaining how DVA and prison disrupt mothering and the
mother–child relationship. This will provide context for why this EGM
will describe DVA interventions in prison and for mothers on their
release from prison. The methods section will describe the systematic
search, including key search terms and search locations, along with
the screening and data extraction processes. We will offer detail
about the software programmes used to manage the evidence. We
will provide an overview of the results including the number of
eligible studies represented in a PRISMA diagram. The results will
integrate the interactive EGM (see the earlier section on ‘Dimen-
sions’). Finally, the discussion will reflect on the extent of evidence
available and we will discuss gaps in the evidence highlighting future
research recommendations and any implications for policy or
practice. A plain English language statement of the EGM findings
will be created.
3.7.2 |Filters for presentation
The EGM will present an interventions‐outcomes framework.
A PRISMA flow diagram will be included and an online interactive
matrix displaying the interactions between the interventions catego-
ries and outcomes. Presentation will use different colours to discern
different types of studies (primary studies of effectiveness, qualita-
tive studies). Searchable filters will include demographic information
(age, ethnicity, asylum or migration status, disability), settings (prison,
or community), geography (country or region), study design (RCT,
non‐RCT, mixed method, qualitative) and intervention type (advo-
cacy, psychosocial and skill‐building, therapeutic support, outreach,
peer support, technology‐based intervention).
3.7.3 |Dependency
The unit of analysis for this EGM is the included studies. Where there
are multiple papers published from the same study, the most recent
open access publication will be included in this EGM. However, if
previous publications of the same study include different outcome
measures, these papers will be included only to report the missing
outcomes. In this case, all papers will be treated as one single study.
The EGM will list those studies with multiple papers clearly in the
references. We will include data regarding the timing of follow‐up
evaluations. Studies with multiple timepoint measurements following
the intervention will be evident in the map.
ROGERS ET AL.
|
9of12

3.8 |Data collection and analysis
3.8.1 |Screening and study selection
As a first step, all titles and abstracts that are retrieved through the
electronic searches will be downloaded to EPPI Reviewer. Duplicated
references will be removed. To ascertain potential relevance for the
review, following Polanin et al. (2019) guidelines, screening questions
will include:
•Does the study report on an intervention/s that addresses DVA?
•Is the setting for the delivery of the intervention prison or post‐
prison?
•Is the population of the study female prisoners in prison or post‐
prison?
Post‐prison is defined as the 12 months following release from
prison when individuals remain on license. To reduce potential bias,
two reviewers will independently screen all titles and abstracts of
references to identify primary studies to be classed as either
‘included’or ‘excluded’at this stage using the above criteria and
recording decision‐making using an initial screening form. Discrepan-
cies in screening decisions will be resolved through discussion, or, if
necessary, by consulting the third member of the research team. We
will document the selection of studies through the screening process
in a PRISMA flow chart and record all decision‐making including the
reasons for exclusion where relevant.
All titles/abstracts deemed potentially relevant during the initial
screening will proceed to full‐text review. Two reviewers will
independently review the full‐text versions using additional criteria
to that employed in screening to reflect the other inclusion criteria
regarding design, and outcomes. All results will be marked as ‘eligible’,
‘ineligible’,or‘unsure’. All results marked as ‘unsure’will be discussed
among the reviewing team. Any discrepancies in review decisions will
be resolved by discussion of the reviewing team.
3.8.2 |Data extraction and management
A data extraction and coding tool will be used to extract descriptive
data from the studies to be included in the EGM (see Supporting
Information: Appendix ACoding Sheet). Data to be extracted will
include:
•General study details (document type, study location, year,
funding).
•Participants (characteristics).
•Study details (research design, comparator—if relevant).
•Intervention (setting, agencies).
•Outcome type.
We will pilot the coding matrix with a random subset of
publications to agree a coding scheme to guide the extraction and
coding process for all included publications (Brown et al., 2003). Two
reviewers will undertake data extraction with disagreements resolved
by consensus. To check for inter‐rater reliability, 5% of each person's
coding will be double‐coded by a second person. Where disagree-
ments arise, a third review author will be consulted. Study authors
will be contacted directly if documents are missing any pertinent
information.
3.8.3 |Tools for assessing risk of bias/study quality
of included reviews
Full‐text papers will be assessed for risk of bias and quality using the
most appropriate tool (please note publications will not be rejected
where the data quality is poor and unreliable albeit quality may be
reported in the review on synthesis of findings). Quality appraisal and
assessment of risk bias will be undertaken in an independent way by
the same reviewers who completed data extraction, and discrepanc-
ies resolved as detailed above. We will use the most up‐to‐date
versions of CASP tools for RCTS, cohort and qualitative studies
(CASP, 2020) and the 2018 version of the Mixed Methods
Assessment Tool (MMAT) to appraise all mixed‐methods studies
(Hong et al., 2018). These tools were selected because all are
designed to deal with quantitative, qualitative and mixed‐methods
research within the same appraisal stage as part of a mixed‐methods
systematic review. This will enable the appraisal of the methodo-
logical quality (including risk of bias) of five categories to studies:
qualitative research; randomised controlled trials; non‐randomised
studies; quantitative descriptive studies, and mixed methods studies.
Where relevant, we will differentiate between different forms of bias
(selection bias, attrition bias etc) reported in RCTs. As critical
appraisal is about making judgments, two reviewers will indepen-
dently appraise each study using the relevant CASP or MMAT tool.
Discrepancies in judgements will be resolved through discussion, or,
if necessary, by consulting the third member of the research team or
colleague with methodological expertise relevant to the specific
study. This will be reported in the review. We will use established
criteria to appraise the quality of the study design using the PRISMA
2020 checklist (Page et al., 2021). Risk of bias ratings across eligible
studies will be presented in tabular and narrative format.
3.8.4 |Methods for mapping
This EGM will use software developed by the EPPI Centre at the
Social Science Research Centre, UCL. We will use EPPI‐Review 4
software to screen and code all studies for inclusion into the EGM
(Thomas et al., 2010). The interactive map will be created using the
EIPPI‐Mapper (Digital Solution Foundry of EPPI Centre, 2020).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for funding this review
and to the members of the Advisory Group for their input and
10 of 12
|
ROGERS ET AL.

feedback. We are also grateful to Katherine Bishop, the University of
Sheffield, for her expertise as an information specialist.
PLANS FOR UPDATING THE EGM
Three authors declare no conflicts of interest. Campbell is an editor for
the Campbell Child and Young Persons Coordinating Group. She will
have no influence on the editorial process for this protocol, or the EGM.
SOURCES OF SUPPORT
Internal sources
•No sources of support provided
External sources
•No sources of support provided
REFERENCES
Apunyo, R., White, H., Otike, C., Katairo, T., Puerto, S., Gardiner, D.,
Kinengyere, A. A., Eyers, J., Saran, A., & Obuku, E. A. (2022).
Interventions to increase youth employment: An evidence and gap
map [Interventions to increase youth employment: An evidence and
gap map]. Campbell Systematic Review,18(1), e1196. https://doi.org/
10.1002/cl2.1196
Baldwin, L. (2017). Tainted love. The impact of prison on maternal
identity. Prison Service Journal,233,28–34.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Harvard University Press.
Brown, S. A., Upchurch, S. L., & Acton, G. J. (2003). A framework for
developing a coding scheme for meta‐analysis. Western Journal of
Nursing Research,25(2), 205–222.
Casey‐Acevedo, K., Bakken, T., & Karle, A. (2004). Children visiting
mothers in prison: The effects on mothers behaviour and disciplinary
adjustment. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology,37(3),
418–430.
CASP. (2020). Critical Skills Appraisal Programme. CASP Checklist.
CASP 2020.
Chartrand, C., & Kilty, J. (2017). Corston principles in Canada: Creating the
carceral Other and moving beyond women in prison. In L. Moore, P.
Scraton, & A. Wahidin (Eds.), Women's imprisonment and the case for
abolition. Critical reflections on Corston ten years on (pp. 109–128).
Routledge.
Codd, H. (2020). International perspectives on mothering and imprison-
ment. In K. Lockwood (Ed.), Mothering from the Inside (pp. 181–196).
Emerald Publishing.
Corston, J. (2007). Review of women with particular vulnerabilities in the
criminal justice system. Home Office.
Crewe, B., Hulley, S., & Wright, S. (2017). The gendered pains of life
imprisonment. British Journal of Criminology,57, azw088.
Day, A. S., & Gill, A. K. (2020). Applying intersectionality to partnerships
between women's organizations and the criminal justice system in
relation to domestic violence. The British Journal of Criminology,60,
830–850.
Digital Solution Foundry of EPPI Centre. (2020). EPPI Mapper Version 1.2.5
[Computer program]. Digital Solution Foundry of EPPI Centre.
Durfee, A., & Goodmark, L. (2021). Is there a protection order to prison
pipeline? Gendered dimensions of cross‐petitions. journal of
aggression. Maltreatment & Trauma,30(4), 471–490.
Enroos, R. (2011). Mothers in prison: Between the public institution and
private family relations. Child & Family Social Work,16,12–21.
Ferrari, G., Feder, G., Agnew‐Davies, R., Bailey, J. E., Hollinghurst, S.,
Howard, L., Howarth, E., Sardinha, L., Sharp, D., & Peters, T. J.
(2018). Psychological advocacy towards healing (PATH): A
randomized controlled trial of a psychological intervention in a
domestic violence service setting. PLoS One,13(11), e0205485.
Finer, L. (2020). Corston report. In F. Bernat, & K. Frailing (Eds.), The
Encyclopedia of women and crime (pp. 121–123). Wiley & Sons.
Flynn, C. (2014). Getting there and being there: Visits to prisons in
Victoria—The experiences of women prisoners and their children.
Probation Journal,61(2), 176–191.
Hong, Q. N., Pluye, P., Fàbregues, S., Bartlett, G., Boardman, F., Cargo, M.,
Dagenais, P., Gagnon, M.‐P., Griffiths, F., Nicolau, B., O'Cathain, A.,
Rousseau, M.‐C., & Vedel, I. (2018). Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool
(MMAT) (Version 2). Canadian Intellectual Property Office, Industry
Canada.
Jones, M. S. (2020). Exploring coercive control, PTSD, and the use of
physical violence in the pre‐prison heterosexual relationships
of incarcerated women. Criminal Justice and Behavior,47(10),
1299–1318.
Lockwood, K. (2017). Listening to mum: narratives of mothers in prison. In
J. Woodiwiss, K. Smith, & K. Lockwood (Eds.), Feminist narrative
research: Opportunities and challenges (1st ed., pp. 123–150).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Macdonald, M. (2013). Women prisoners, mental health, violence and
abuse. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry,36(3–4), 293–303.
McCauley, H. L., Richie, F., Hughes, S., Johnson, J. E., Zlotnick, C.,
Rosen, R. K., Wechsberg, W. M., & Kuo, C. C. (2020). Trauma, power,
and intimate relationships among women in prison. Violence Against
Women,26(6–7), 659–674.
Mignon, S., & Ransford, P. (2012). Mothers in prison: Maintaining
connections with children. Soc Work Public Health,27(1–2), 69–88.
Ministry of Justice. (2012). A distinct approach.
Ministry of Justice. (2018). Female offender strategy.
Newman, C., Fowler, C., & Cashin, A. (2011). The development of a
parenting program for incarcerated mothers in Australia: A review of
prison‐based parenting programs. Contemporary Nurse,39(1), 2–11.
NOMS. (2015). Better outcomes for women offenders. National Offender
Management Service.
Petrillo, M. (2021). ‘We've all got a big story’: Experiences of a trauma‐
informed intervention in prison. The Howard Journal of Crime and
Justice,60(2), 232–250.
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C.,
Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E.,
Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M.,
Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo‐Wilson, E., McDonald, S., …Moher, D.
(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for
reporting systematic reviews. BMJ,372, n71.
Phelan, A., & Kirwan, M. (2020). Contextualising missed care in two
healthcare inquiries using a socio‐ecological systems approach.
Journal of Clinical Nursing,29(17–18), 3527–3540.
Polanin, J. R., Pigott, T. D., Espelage, D. L., & Grotpeter, J. K. (2019). Best
practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic
reviews and meta‐analyses. Research Synthesis Methods,10(3),
330–342.
Prison Reform International. (2020). Addressing the 105,000 increase in the
global female prison population, ten years after the Bangkok Rules were
adopted.https://www.penalreform.org/blog/addressing-the-105000-
increase-in-the-global-female/
Prison Reform Trust. (2017). “There's a reason we're in trouble”: Domestic
abuse as a driver to women's offending.
Roberts, J. (2019). ‘It was do or die’: how women's offending can occur as
aby‐product of attempting to survive domestic abuse. Journal of
Gender‐Based Violence,3(3), 283–302.
Saran, A., & White, H. (2018). Evidence and gap maps: A comparison of
different approaches. Campbell Systematic Reviews,14(1), 1–38.
Shuford, S. H., Gjelsvik, A., Clarke, J., & van den Berg, J. J. (2018). Depression
among women released from prison or jail in the United States. Journal
of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved,29(3), 914–929.
ROGERS ET AL.
|
11 of 12

Stark, E. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal
life. Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, J., & Baldry, E. (2017). In pursuit of fundamental change
within the Australian penal landscape: Taking inspiration from
the Corston Report. In L. Moore, P. Scraton, & A. Wahidin (Eds.),
Women's imprisonment and the case for abolition (pp. 129–149).
Routledge.
Sullivan, E. A., Kendall, S., Chang, S., Baldry, E., Zeki, R., Gilles, M.,
Wilson, M., Butler, T., Levy, M., Wayland, S., Cullen, P., Jones, J., &
Sherwood, J. (2019). Aboriginal mothers in prison in Australia: A
study of social, emotional and physical wellbeing. Australian and New
Zealand Journal of Public Health,43(3), 1753–6405.
Tallent, J., Phillips, J., & Coren, E. (2022). Protocol: Arts‐based interven-
tions for offenders in secure criminal justice settings to improve
rehabilitation outcomes: An evidence and gap map. Campbell
Systematic Reviews,18(3), e1255. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1255
Taylor, B., & Sullivan, B. (2008). The Duluth model—What it is and is not:
Clarifying and correcting common misconceptions. Journal for
Women and Policing,21(20), 33–37.
Thomas, J., Brunton, J., & Graziosi, S. (2010). EPPI Reviewer 4: Software for
research synthesis. Version 4 [Computer program]. Social Science
Research Unit, EPPI Centre S, UCL, Institute of Education.
Trabold, N., McMahon, J., Alsobrooks, S., Whitney, S., & Mittal, M. (2020).
A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions: state
of the field and implications for practitioners. Trauma, violence &
abuse,21(2), 311–325.
United Nations. (n.d.). What is domestic abuse.https://www.un.org/en/
coronavirus/what-is-domestic-abuse
UNODC. (2014). Handbook on women and imprisonment (2nd ed.). United
Nations.
Valenzuela‐Vela, L., & Alcázar‐Campos, A. (2019). Gendered carceral
logics in social work: The blurred boundaries in gender equality
policies for imprisoned and battered women in Spain. Affilia,35(1),
73–88.
Vevea, J. L., & Woods, C. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis.
Psychological Methods,10(4), 428–443.
White, H., Albers, B., Gaarder, M., Kornør, H., Littell, J., Marshall, Z.,
Mathew, C., Pigott, T., Snilstveit, B., Waddington, H., & Welch, V.
(2020). Guidance for producing a Campbell evidence and gap map.
Campbell Systematic Reviews,16(4), e1125. https://doi.org/10.1002/
cl2.1125
World Prison Brief. (2017). World Female Imprisonment List.https://
www.prisonstudies.org/research-publications?shs_term_node_tid_
depth=27
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional supporting information can be found online in the
Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Rogers, M., Lockwood, K., Speake, E.,
& Campbell, F. (2023). PROTOCOL: Domestic abuse
interventions for mothers in or exiting prison: An evidence
and gap map. Campbell Systematic Reviews,19, e1313.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1313
12 of 12
|
ROGERS ET AL.