Ashley Melvin

Involving people with lived experience as research partners is becoming more common in other fields (e.g., healthcare), but it is unclear whether this is also the case in intimate partner violence (IPV) research. This rapid scoping review aimed to characterize the extent to which IPV survivors/victims have been involved as research partners in the existing literature. We systematically searched five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Gender Studies, plus a final search in Google Scholar) for empirical studies published between 2014 and 2024 that involved IPV survivors/victims as more than “study participants” (e.g., involvement in the development of research questions, study design, data collection, data analysis, knowledge translation). A total of 2,596 records were identified, and 27 records met the inclusion criteria. Studies often did not report co-researcher demographic characteristics, making it difficult to fully determine the level of involvement of equity-deserving groups in IPV research teams. The most common participatory models used to guide the involvement of survivors/victims were community-based participatory research and participatory action research. Survivor/victim co-researchers were most commonly involved in research design, developing study materials, data analysis, and knowledge translation/dissemination. There was limited evidence of IPV survivors/victims being engaged as full and equal partners, rather than as collaborators or consultants. The review identified barriers, facilitators, diversity issues, and recommendations for IPV co-research, which can inform the development of guidelines for involving survivors/victims as full and equal members of the research team.

Although intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive public health and human rights issue, service systems often remain fragmented and inadequately responsive to the intersecting social and structural conditions that shape experiences of violence and access to care. This qualitative study explored the service needs of individuals who had experienced IPV, engaged in IPV, or both, with particular attention to how intersecting identities, cultural contexts, and systemic factors influenced help-seeking, beliefs about IPV, and access to support. Guided by intersectionality theory, twenty-four adults participated in semi-structured interviews between November 2024 and July 2025. Data were analyzed using practical thematic analysis, with interpretation supported by reflexive team discussions and lived-experience input from a Community Advisory Team and a Patient/Client & Family Council representative. Two overarching themes and seven subthemes were identified: (a) available and desired services, encompassing community supports, mental health care, housing, and legal systems; and (b) culture, identity, and lived experience in service access, focusing on cultural belonging, intersecting identities, and lived experience as a resource for navigating services. Participants described IPV-related services as siloed, under-resourced, and frequently retraumatizing. Access depended on service availability, as well as affordability, acceptability, cultural safety, continuity, and responsiveness to diverse lived realities. Community-based, culturally grounded, and trauma-informed supports were highly valued, while safe housing, sustained mental health care, and more nuanced legal and rehabilitative responses were identified as critical unmet needs. Participants with dual experiences or histories of engaging in IPV emphasized the importance of compassionate, accountability-oriented supports rather than exclusively punitive approaches. The findings shed light on the need for integrated, intersectional, and trauma- and violence-informed IPV service systems that embed lived experience and culturally safe, community-led approaches to improve equity, access, healing, and prevention.

Mental health care providers face heightened risk for burnout, posttraumatic stress disorder, and other mental health problems due to workplace violence exposure and chronic stressors, exacerbated by postpandemic workforce challenges. Little evidence exists to guide interventions to reduce workplace trauma and burnout in psychiatric hospitals or to establish a baseline for evaluating implementation efforts. We consulted with 28 cross-sector stakeholders to share research and generate actions, then elicited further suggestions and feedback from 120 participants, producing 12 detailed recommended strategies to address workplace violence, burnout, and trauma. We then conducted a preimplementation survey of hospital leaders (N = 22) and union representatives (N = 18) at Canadian hospitals with inpatient mental health beds. Participants ranked their top priorities (i.e., most important, valuable, and urgent) and rated the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementing the recommended strategies at their hospital. Recommendations rated the highest priority concerned proactive strategies: preventing workplace critical events, creating psychologically healthy workplaces, and strengthening staff's ability to prevent and safely respond to critical events. However, hospitals were most likely to have engaged responses at the postexposure phase, including operational debriefing and trauma prevention for exposed staff. Capacity-building recommendations were the least likely to be undertaken. Current practices were related to ratings of familiarity and feasibility rather than agreement with the recommendation. Hospital and union representatives had similar priorities. These findings highlight the need for collaboration among hospital leadership, employee associations, government agencies, and other stakeholders to prevent workplace burnout and trauma. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).