Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Whether natural disaster, war, financial crisis, or global health emergency, upsurges in domestic violence lurk in the shadows of every crisis. In 2020, following the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, Executive Director of UN Women, described the lockdowns and related control measures as “a perfect storm for controlling, violent behaviour behind closed doors.” Drawing on research investigating domestic and family violence help-seeking and service responses during the COVID-19 lockdowns, this paper explores what the pandemic has taught us about designing responsive and accessible services to support victim-survivors during normal operations as well as in times of crisis.

Keywords

crises innovation remote service provision service design domestic and family violence

Introduction

While crises are often characterized by uncertainty and disruption, they can also be a time of opportunity and innovation. Crises often require rapid solutions to novel problems that can pave the way for new ways of working and the creation of new or improved systems. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most domestic and family violence (DFV) services worldwide were based on in-person, face-to-face service delivery models (Joshi et al., 2021; Lee et al., 2017; Martin et al., 2020). In 2020, the coronavirus swept across the globe, leading the World Health Organization (WHO) to declare a pandemic and urge countries to introduce control measures to limit community transmission and protect public health (WHO, 2020). Restrictions introduced to counter the spread of COVID-19, particularly physical distancing and stay-at-home orders, forced DFV services internationally to swiftly transition to remote service delivery models wherever possible. This transition necessitated the use of phones and digital communication technologies, such as video conferencing, chatrooms, and instant messaging applications, to deliver services remotely. Drawing on an Australian case study, this paper explores insights from DFV victim-survivors and workers about what we have learnt from the COVID-19 pandemic and how we can leverage the service innovations piloted during the early years of the pandemic to build more flexible and responsive service systems that cater for diverse victim-survivor needs and communities at all times.

Times of Crisis and Experiences of DFV

A growing body of work has explored how control measures intended to contain the spread of the coronavirus impacted experiences of DFV, including occurrences of relationship violence for the first time during COVID-19 restrictions and the intensification of abuse where partner violence pre-dated the pandemic. Forecast modeling published by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA, 2020) in April 2020 predicted that for every 3 months that lockdowns continued, an additional 15 million cases of domestic violence would occur worldwide. This forecasting was confirmed by later studies on experiences of intimate partner violence during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, Australian research explored women's experiences of intimate partner violence during the initial national lockdown in May 2020 (Boxall & Morgan, 2021). This survey of 15,000 Australian women found that 3.4% of women who were in a relationship in the 12 months prior to the pandemic reported experiencing physical violence for the first time during the national lockdown (Boxall & Morgan, 2021). For women who had experienced relationship violence prior to the pandemic, 41.7% reported that their experiences of violence had intensified in severity and/or frequency since the start of the pandemic (Boxall & Morgan, 2021). Similarly, a survey of 2,300 Iranian women revealed that experiences of intimate partner violence increased for partnered women following the onset of the pandemic in 2020. Furthermore, 25.5% of women who reported no history of intimate partner violence before the pandemic said that they experienced at least one incident of domestic violence during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic (Fereidooni et al., 2023). Likewise, an American systematic review found that domestic violence incidents increased by 8.1% following the introduction of stay-at-home orders in 2020 (Piquero et al., 2021). These reported increases in the frequency and severity of DFV during the COVID-19 pandemic are consistent with previous disaster research that shows increased rates of domestic violence following bushfires, floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, financial crises and other types of crises (Fisher, 2010; Hozic & True, 2016; Kinnvall & Rydstrom, 2019; Parkinson & Zara, 2013; Schneider et al., 2016; True, 2013).

Disruptions to DFV Help-Seeking and Support During COVID-19

At the same time as the risk of DFV increased, access to support services was reduced due to pandemic control measures, particularly stay-at-home orders. Research has documented the ways in which COVID-19 restrictions amplified existing barriers and created new obstacles to accessing support for DFV victim-survivors who were confined to homes with their abusers (Carrington et al., 2021; Michaelsen et al., 2024; Moffitt et al., 2022; Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023; Pfitzner et al., 2020a, 2020c, 2022a, 2022b, 2023; Polischuk & Fay, 2020). Reduced privacy in homes during stay-at-home orders and the resulting increase in communications surveillance restricted opportunities for people to seek help from support services and the ability of victim-survivors to communicate openly with support services if contact was made (Pfitzner et al., 2022b; Warren et al., 2022). Pandemic control measures also disrupted traditional DFV service delivery models and practices. Many DFV services lacked the technical resources needed to support workers to work remotely from their homes (Michaelsen et al., 2024). Research with social workers in Sweden found that pandemic restrictions hindered client/service provider relationships, particularly trust building (Skillmark et al., 2023). Similar findings were made in a UK study of 70 victim-survivors about their experiences of accessing specialist DFV services during the pandemic (Richardson Foster et al., 2022). This study found that remote service models reduced opportunities to build effective client–practitioner relationships (Richardson Foster et al., 2022).

Theorizing Service Use

It is generally agreed that an individual's access to, or use of, a service is shaped by multiple, interrelated factors (O'Donnell, 2007; Penchansky & Thomas, 1981; Peters et al., 2008). Penchansky and Thomas (1981) define “access” as the degree of fit between the client and service provider or system. Their seminal work on the five A's of service access—availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, and acceptability (Penchansky & Thomas, 1981)—created the foundations for understanding access to services as a multidimensional concept. Later work has built on this model, adding a sixth dimension—awareness (Saurman, 2016). Availability refers to the timeliness of service provision and the ability of a service provider to meet service demand and the specific needs of the clients and the community they serve (Penchansky & Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Accessibility looks at practical factors, such as service location, travel time, and transportation cost, that influence a person's ability to reach a service provider's location (Penchansky & Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Accommodation relates to the manner in which services operate and individuals’ perceptions of their appropriateness. Affordability centers on the monetary costs of services and a client's ability to pay (Penchansky & Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Acceptability considers a client's comfortability with “immutable characteristics” of the service provider and whether they can derive a benefit from the service given their individual circumstances and needs (McLaughlin & Wyszewianski, 2002, p. 1441; Penchansky & Thomas, 1981; Saurman, 2016). Finally, awareness considers both an individual's understanding of their needs and knowledge of how to meet them and a service provider’s understanding of client needs and how to satisfy them (Saurman, 2016). In this sense, Saurman (2016, p. 38) argues that access should be judged by the use of a service by those in need and those who would benefit from it:

Awareness is more than knowing that a service exists, it is understanding and using that knowledge. It includes identifying that the service is needed, knowing whom the service is for, what it does, when it is available, where and how to use it, why the service would be used, and preserving that knowledge.

While a number of studies have documented disruptions to DFV service systems during the COVID-19 pandemic and the negative impacts on service use, less attention has been paid to the opportunities this crisis created for DFV service providers to reimagine service delivery. Research by Humphreys et al. (2023) has identified innovative perpetrator responses piloted in Australia and the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, this article centers on learnings about how to improve support for victim-survivors and explores the benefits of remote service delivery based on victim-survivors’ lived experiences of accessing DFV support services during the pandemic and the experiences and reflections of the workers who supported them.

Method

In this article, I conduct secondary analysis of three merged qualitative datasets to produce a rich, holistic understanding of the innovation opportunities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic for strengthening DFV service systems. The methodological approach in these studies gave primacy to the voices of lived experience. This includes the lived experience of clients who sought support for DFV during the COVID-19 lockdowns as well as the lived experience of practitioners who work in the DFV sector.

Study A: Australian Victim-Survivors Who Sought Help During the COVID-19 Lockdowns

In the first study (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023), 61 victim-survivors completed an anonymous online survey about their experiences of seeking DFV support during the COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia. The survey combined a series of short demographic questions with open-ended questions that invited victim-survivors to reflect on their experiences of accessing DFV support during lockdowns, the method by which remote support was provided, whether that method was helpful, and how services could have done better to deliver DFV support during lockdowns. Respondents could choose to answer some or all of the survey questions. The survey was delivered via the Qualtrics platform and ran for a 6-week period during May and June 2022.

Survey respondents lived in every Australian state and territory aside from Tasmania, with the majority living in Victoria (50%, n = 26). Nearly all survey respondents (90%, n = 54) identified their gender and sex as female, with 10% (n = 6) identifying as male. Around three quarters (n = 39) of the survey sample identified as heterosexual, 14% (n = 7) as bisexual, pansexual, or both, 4% (n = 2) as queer, and 2% (n = 1) each as asexual and questioning. The majority of the sample (46%, n = 28) were aged 41–50 years old. Four out of five respondents spoke only English at home (82%, n = 49), and just under 20% of the sample (n = 11) indicated that they spoke a language other than English at home. Almost one third of respondents identified as having a disability. For more detailed characteristics of the study sample, see (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023).

The survey was targeted at victim-survivors who sought help for DFV during COVID-19 lockdowns and utilized a self-selecting sampling method. This exploratory study does not generalize beyond the survey sample, and the experiences reported here may not be representative of the broader Australian victim-survivor population. Researchers are increasingly using qualitative surveys to capture the lived experience of specific, and sometimes hard to reach, groups of people, noting that such methods provide participants with greater control over the research process, including when and where they will participate (Braun et al., 2017). As with similar research in the DFV field (see Reeves et al., 2023), the decision to gather data using this method was made to maximize the reach of the research as well as to reduce, as much as possible, the burden for victim-survivors who wished to participate.

Study B: The Experiences of DFV Practitioners During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in Victoria, Australia

The second study (Pfitzner et al., 2022a, 2022b, 2023) involved 116 practitioners who supported women affected by DFV during the first COVID-19 lockdown in the Australian state of Victoria. An anonymous online survey that combined a series of short demographic questions with rating scale and open-ended questions was used to capture practitioners’ reflections on the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on women's experiences of intimate partner violence and their own experiences of providing support during lockdown, including practice changes and service adaptations. The survey ran for a 4-week period during April and May 2020.¹

Two thirds of the practitioners surveyed worked in child and family services (33%, n = 48) and specialist family and sexual violence services (29%, n = 42). Practitioners’ experience working with DFV clients ranged from less than 1 year to 37 years, with an average duration of 2.9 years and a median of 6.5 years (n = 119). The survey respondents worked across Victoria, including nonmetropolitan locations. All survey participants were assured anonymity as part of the consent process, and therefore information on specific organizations employing participants was not collected.

Study C: DFV Practitioners Who Supported Clients Experiencing Abuse During COVID-19 Lockdowns in Victoria, Australia

The third study (Pfitzner et al., 2020b, 2023) was based on an online survey of 113 Victorian DFV practitioners and virtual focus groups with 28 practitioners from specialist DFV and men's services during July to August 2020, when the state of Victoria was in a prolonged lockdown with some of the most stringent restrictions in the world. The online survey combined a series of short demographic questions with a rating scale and open-ended questions and ran for a 4-week period from July 13, 2020 to August 9, 2020. The survey invited practitioners to reflect on the personal benefits and challenges of working remotely, the supports needed to safeguard their well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, service innovations that had emerged during this time, and the infrastructure required to support these practice changes over the long term. As part of the focus on worker well-being, respondents were asked to complete the Professional Quality of Life Scale Version 5 (ProQOL). The semi-structured online focus groups were conducted in the 4-week period immediately following the survey closure in August 2020 and involved open-ended questions on worker well-being and service innovations.

The practitioners in this study primarily worked in Metropolitan Melbourne (54.1%) and regional Victoria (29.4%). Nearly half worked in specialist family and sexual violence services, 17.9% in legal, justice, and corrections contexts, and 11.3% in child and family services. Practitioners’ experience working with DFV clients ranged from less than 1 year to 38 years, with a median of 7 years and a bimodal of 5 and 10 years (n = 97).

Recruitment

For each of the studies, information about the surveys was distributed on social media outlets, through the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre network, and by providing information about the survey directly to relevant organizations. Ethics approval from each study was received through the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee. Pseudonyms were used for all participants in each study, and any identifying details were removed.

Data Analysis

The quantitative findings from these studies have been published elsewhere (see Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023; Pfitzner et al., 2020a, 2020c, 2023). The decision to examine the qualitative data from these three studies as a single set was taken because the collective data speak directly to clients’ experiences of remote service delivery in the context of DFV.

Taken as a single set, the three studies are methodologically, thematically, and contextually linked, and bringing them together for secondary analysis allows for a meaningful analytic conversation about service use. Listening to and learning from the lived experience of clients and the observations of practitioners who support them is essential to strengthening DFV service delivery.

The three studies were purposefully chosen because of their common contexts and settings—all taking place in Victoria, Australia, a jurisdiction that experienced some of the strictest and longest lockdowns in the world. Drawing together these three datasets for secondary analysis provides an opportunity to produce higher order qualitative generalizations, particularly as two of the studies comprise sample sizes over 100 (Weller et al., 2023). While qualitative secondary analysis has gained acceptance and use, some researchers have raised ethical questions (Hughes & Tarrant, 2020; Irvine, 2023; Irwin, 2013). In the context of DFV research, consideration of informed consent and researcher relationality are particularly important. In this case I, the author, was contextually and temporally embedded in the original field sites and had direct, first-hand experience with the data collection processes for all three studies. Cognizant of the trust placed in me by the different study participants, I am confident this secondary analysis aligns with the basis on which the study participants originally shared their experiences with my research team.

The qualitative survey data from all three studies were thematically analyzed in Excel to develop a rich description of clients’ and practitioners’ experiences of remote DFV service delivery during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Drawing on Bazeley (2013) and Miles and Huberman (1994), I engaged in a two-stage coding process using NVivo 12. First-level coding involved descriptive coding, labeling passages of data with codes that summarized the data segments (Bazeley, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Second-level coding built on these summaries, refining, interpreting, and grouping them into smaller analytical categories, themes, or constructs (Bazeley, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994). This phase explored the interrelatedness of data within and across themes to construct meaningful explanations (Bazeley, 2013). The coding process was cyclical, constantly moving from data to description to analysis (Bazeley, 2013; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

As part of the coding process, I employed a priori codes using the six dimensions of access—availability, accessibility, accommodation, affordability, acceptability, and awareness—identified in the theoretical literature discussed earlier in this paper as metacategories to sort and organize codes. Miles and Huberman describe a priori codes as providing “a provisional ‘start list’ of codes,” and while I drew on the six-dimensional model of service access to create a tentative coding framework, the a priori codes were not forced on the data and were revised or disregarded where they did not fit (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 58). For instance, the dimensions of affordability and awareness were not prominent across the three datasets.

Findings

The COVID-19 pandemic heralded a wide-scale shift from face-to-face to remote service delivery in DFV sectors internationally, including Australia. For many DFV service providers, this was their first foray into remote service provision and the integration of digital interfaces, such as video conferencing, chatrooms, and instant messaging applications, into service delivery models. The service dimensions of accessibility and accommodation became critical during the first year of COVID-19 lockdowns in Australia. Overall, the experiences of the victim-survivors and DFV practitioners in the three studies indicate that the virtual services piloted during the lockdowns increased accessibility for previously under-serviced user groups, particularly those who face geographic and mobility barriers. In addition, remote access also reduced psychological barriers often associated with accessing services related to sensitive issues, such as DFV.

Accessibility: The Benefits of Virtual Support Services

The experiences of victim-survivors and practitioners across all three studies indicate that remote service delivery models increased the accessibility of DFV support services for many previously underserved groups. In particular, remote service provision was seen by victim-survivors and practitioners to reduce geographic and mobility barriers while increasing the psychological accessibility.

Overcoming Geographic and Mobility Barriers

The Australian state of Victoria holds the unenviable world title for the longest cumulative period spent in lockdown (267 days from 2020 to 2021; see Boaz, 2021) and led the world with some of the most stringent lockdown conditions, including a curfew and substantial restrictions of movement and social gatherings inside and outside homes. The long periods of lockdown forced DFV services in Victoria to accelerate the incorporation of digital technologies into service delivery models. Many victim-survivors living in rural and remote areas in Study A noted that the transition to remote service provision improved accessibility and removed the economic costs traditionally associated with accessing specialized DFV services, such as travel, childcare, and taking unpaid leave from work, as they no longer had to travel long distances to service locations to access support. For example, one victim-survivor commented that:

I could receive weekly phone call support from Family Services. This saved travel time and meant that even if the kids were home, I could still have the appointment while they were occupied in a different room. (41- to 50-year-old heterosexual woman, VIC, Study A)

This example highlights the systemic economic inequities of in-person service delivery models for victim-survivors living in nonurban areas and/or with mobility disabilities and points to the potential of virtual supports to improve equity in physical access to DFV services. At the same time, it is important to recognize that the digital transformation of DFV services is related to broader digital inclusion barriers for victim-survivors living in nonurban areas. Speed, reliability, cost, and access to the internet and mobile data are problematic for people living in rural and remote areas in Australia (Park, 2017; Thomas et al., 2023). During the prolonged lockdowns in 2020–2021, the digital inclusion score, which measures people's online participation based on access, affordability, and digital ability, was 7.6 points lower for Australians living in rural areas (57.4) compared to those living in capital cities (65.9) (Thomas et al., 2020).

Improving the Psychological Accessibility of DFV Services

In addition to overcoming geographical barriers to access, a number of victim-survivors in Study A reported that remote service provision through digital technologies reduced psychological barriers associated with accessing DFV services by providing less visible, nonstigmatizing entry points to services. For instance, one victim-survivor explained that the ability to access services remotely reduced their fear of being publicly seen to access DFV support.

Easier to access FV services during lockdowns because phoning them became the normal way of working with them, rather than “shame” about going to their offices. (51- to 60-year-old bisexual woman, VIC, Study A)

This victim-survivor's story indicates that virtual supports and interventions provide less visible, nonstigmatizing entry points to services that make some people more comfortable with seeking help.

Aligning with this, a number of practitioners in Studies B and C reported that remote support provides victim-survivors with anonymity and can increase the willingness of people to disclose abuse where they would otherwise feel uncomfortable doing so face-to-face. As two practitioners commented:

Actually we are finding women are being more forthcoming during the telephone consults. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study B)

Not being able to see services face to face has definitely impacted on women's ability to seek help—very hard to discuss FV when the perpetrator is sitting in the room with you listening to your call. On the flip side of this I believe that we have had some disclosures of FV on the phone calls we make by women that otherwise would not have said anything face to face. Sometimes being on the phone makes difficult conversations easier. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study B)

Likewise, another practitioner explained that the anonymous nature of virtual supports and care interventions has a two-fold effect that benefits both clients and workers. They said anonymity can empower victim-survivors to have “courageous conversations” and also safeguard the DFV workforce by protecting workers’ identities:

I have been able to work with clients in a quicker time frame. There has been less relationship building than is done when face-to-face. I am not sure if this is good or bad but I have still had good outcomes even working via phone. I am able to get to the “guts” of the problem or risk factors quicker. I am able to have some “courageous conversations” with clients even over the phone and in some cases because the phone has made it less intimidating for them they have responded well as a result… Definitely anonymity is a bonus in our high risk nature of our jobs. It is good to have that anonymity of clients not knowing your face out in the public arena. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study C)

Taken together, the reports of the victim-survivors and practitioners across the three studies suggest that incorporation of virtual supports and care interventions in DFV service delivery enables victim-survivors to anonymously seek support and provides a service environment in which some victim-survivors feel freer to disclose abuse and have challenging conversations.

Accommodation: The Usability of Online Help-Seeking Tools

The internet and digital technologies are hallmarks of everyday life in the twenty-first century, and the COVID-19 pandemic has seen a surge in our collective use of and dependence on digital technologies (De et al., 2020; Ragoussis & Timmis, 2022). It is therefore unsurprising that many victim-survivors and practitioners remarked on the usability of online support services and help-seeking tools. For example, one victim-survivor talked about the ease of being able to obtain a protection order over the phone:

I was able to apply for a protection order over the phone, without needing to go to court in person. I think it was significantly less stressful to do it that way. (25- to 30-year-old bi-pansexual woman, ACT, Study A)

Victim-survivors and practitioners across all three studies noted the ease of use of online help-seeking tools, including the Arc app, the Daisy app, Hello Cass, and Gruveo. A key feature of these digital services is that they enable covert communication, which is undetectable to others, including perpetrators who may be monitoring devices.

Aligning with the reports of victim-survivors in Study A, one DFV practitioner commented that younger clients are highly skilled at using digital communication technologies:

I have found working with younger clients a lot more successful and they engage better via phone. They have social media and am able to send them things via email etc a lot easier and quicker than some of the older clients. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study C)

This practitioner's observation about the high-level digital skills of young people aligns with work on “digital natives.” Research has found that children in Europe typically have their first experience with digital technologies before the age of two (Chaudron et al., 2018). In Australia, a recent study of 2,450 parents, carers, and grandparents of children aged 5–17 years old revealed that 92% allowed their children to use digital devices by the age of four (Graham & Sahlberg, 2021). The study found that on average Australian children own 3.3 screen-based devices each (Graham & Sahlberg, 2021). This research illustrates how information and communication technologies (ICTs) have become integrated into everyday life.

Aligning with the collective increased use of digital technologies, one practitioner explained that their service piloted a few different online help-seeking tools during the first COVID-19 lockdown in 2020. They said that:

We have been attempting to use video apps to contact our clients. We downloaded Gruveo as this did not require the women to keep an app on their phone. We've been using What's App which tells us the time that messages were viewed. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study B)

When asked about ways to improve service responses during the first COVID lockdown, a few practitioners in Study B nominated the incorporation of digital communication technologies into service delivery models as a key area for improvement. As one DFV practitioner reported:

Increased consideration of online digital options and supporting. Funding Hello Cass. Promoting tech options such as Arc app. (Victorian DFV practitioner, Study B)

While many practitioners and victim-survivors discussed new virtual services and interventions that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic, a few victim-survivors also reported positive experiences with more traditional remote service formats, specifically telephone-based services. For example, two victim-survivors commented on their positive experiences with telephone helplines during the COVID-19 lockdowns:

The people I spoke to at 1800 RESPECT were amazing. I initially called as an act of desperation and had extremely low expectations for their ability to provide any help but they were so great. Very skilled at helping me understand my situation and think though absolutely every detail of my escape plan. It was an invaluable resource and support for me. I cannot speak highly enough of them. (31- to 40-year-old pansexual woman, VIC, Study A)

It was helpful. I got some good legal advice and it was good to have a sympathetic ear to listen to my issues in confidence. (51- to 60-year-old heterosexual woman, NSW, Study A)

Similarly, another victim-survivor said they had a positive experience with an online chat service despite experiencing connection issues:

The chat line kept on dropping out … but found RESPECT [a national 24-hour counselling service for domestic, family and sexual violence] online chat useful. (61 and over heterosexual woman, VIC, Study A)

The experiences and views of these victim-survivors and DFV practitioners align with a growing body of research on the use of online supports by people experiencing DFV to access the healthcare and justice systems. These studies indicate that online services are convenient and offer users a greater sense of control over help-seeking processes (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023; Tarzia et al., 2018). In the context of DFV, feeling in control may be particularly pertinent for victim-survivors recovering from an abusive relationship (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023) and, as discussed above, the ability to anonymously seek help was positively viewed by victim-survivors and practitioners alike. From an accommodation dimension perspective, the experiences and reflections of the victim-survivors and DFV practitioners in the three studies indicate that the usability and hidden nature of online help-seeking tools are appealing service features that promote service use.

Discussion and Conclusion

Previously much of the conversation about digital interfaces and anonymity in the context of DFV has focused on the negative aspects of identity shielding and how these can be exploited by perpetrators to abuse and control other people. Less attention has been paid to the potential benefits of identity shielding for victim-survivors who are reluctant or unable to seek support face-to-face. This study indicates that for some victim-survivors the anonymity afforded by the use of digital interfaces in DFV service delivery enables disclosure and more meaningful engagement with support workers.

It is widely acknowledged that social and cultural attitudes influence people’s perceptions of services and their likelihood of use (Pfitzner et al., 2017; Weeks, 2004). Week (2004, p. 322) describes this as “psychological accessibility,” explaining that certain characteristics of services, including the name of services, may stimulate stigma or a sense of fear about use. Long-standing social stigmatization negatively impacts on the psychological accessibility of the DFV services, and virtual service models may enable the provision of support in a more psychologically accessible manner. This appeared to be the case for some of the victim survivors who participated in the studies.

While this article focuses on the positive lessons learned from innovative service designs piloted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the digital divide. The accounts of the victim-survivors and practitioners in the three studies reported in this paper indicate that digital transformation of DFV services during the COVID-19 pandemic increased the accessibility of support services for some user groups and encouraged others to disclose abuse for the first time. At the same time, the large-scale shift to remote service provision and use of digital communication technologies widened the digital divide for other victim-survivors who lacked access to the internet and digital devices and/or who had low levels of digital literacy and skills; these victim-survivors had less or no access to virtual support services (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023; Richardson Foster et al., 2022; Tarzia et al., 2018).

It is also important to acknowledge a tension that arises with the utilization of digital communication technologies for victim-survivors living in rural and remote areas. On the one hand, the ability to access services remotely can open up access to specialized supports; on the other hand, the cost of reliable internet access is significantly more than for those living in metropolitan areas (Park, 2017; Thomas et al., 2023). While remote service delivery models may overcome physical barriers to service access for rural users, financial inequities remain.

Finally, it is important to recognize that client preference plays a large role in how, and if at all, victim-survivors seek help from DFV support services (Pfitzner & McGowan, 2023). A key step toward victim-survivor-led service design is understanding their preferences for different help-seeking modes. This paper seeks to build this understanding by examining the experiences and preferences of victim-survivors and the professionals who supported them using remote service delivery models piloted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic led to a period of rapid design innovation and accelerated the incorporation of digital technologies into DFV service delivery to provide support and care in new and enhanced ways. Virtual service models increased many victim-survivors’ access to specialist care and advice, especially for those living in nonurban areas and/or with mobility disabilities. Adding to other studies, the preferences of victim-survivors and reflections of DFV professionals in the three studies support the retention of hybrid service delivery models in the future (Cortis et al., 2021). In order for DFV service systems to cater for diverse victim-survivor preferences, needs, and communities, investment and infrastructure are required to ensure that the service innovations that arose during the COVID-19 pandemic are sustained in the future.

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Naomi Pfitzner

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Naomi Pfitzner is the Deputy Director of the Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre and a Senior Lecturer in Criminology in the Faculty of Arts at Monash University. She is an interdisciplinary researcher who conducts research on gender-based violence, gender, family studies, social policy, and law. She is an emerging leader in gender-based violence crisis response and is nationally and internationally recognized for her work on DFV, help-seeking behaviors, and service innovation during COVID-19. Her interdisciplinary work has a key focus on gender-based violence prevention, respectful relationships education, and gender equality.

References

Bazeley

(2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage Publications.

Boaz

(2021, October 3). Melbourne passes Buenos Aires’ world record for time spent in COVID-19 lockdown. ABC News Online. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-03/melbourne-longest-lockdown/100510710

Boxall

Morgan

(2021). Intimate partner violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey of women in Australia (Research Report No. 03/2021). ANROWS. https://anrowsdev.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/4AP10-Boxall-Morgan-IPV-During-Covid-ANROWS-RR.1.pdf

Braun

Clarke

Gray

(2017). Innovations in qualitative methods. In Gough

(Ed.), The Palgrave handbook of critical social psychology (pp. 243–266). Palgrave Handbooks. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51018-1_13

Carrington

Morley

Warren

Ryan

Ball

Clarke

Vitis

(2021). The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on Australian domestic and family violence services and their clients. The Australian Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.183

Chaudron

Di Gioia

Gemo

M. M.

(2018). Young children (0-8) and digital technology—A qualitative study across Europe. European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/294383

Cortis

Smyth

Valentine

Breckenridge

Cullen

(2021). Adapting service delivery during COVID-19: Experiences of domestic violence practitioners. British Journal of Social Work, 51(5), 1779–1798. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcab105

Pandey

Pal

(2020). Impact of digital surge during COVID-19 pandemic: A viewpoint on research and practice. International Journal of Information Management, 55, 102171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102171

Fereidooni

Mootz

Sabaei

Khoshnood

Heydari

S. T.

Moradian

M. J.

Taherifard

Nasirian

Molavi Vardanjani

(2023). The COVID-19 pandemic, socioeconomic effects, and intimate partner violence against women: A population-based cohort study in 2020, Iran. American Journal of Public Health (1971), 113(2), 228–237. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2022.306839

10.

Fisher

(2010). Violence against women and natural disasters: Findings from post-tsunami Sri Lanka. Violence Against Women, 16(8), 902–918. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801210377649

11.

Graham

Sahlberg

(2021). Growing Up Digital Australia: Phase 2 technical report. Gonski Institute for Education. Sydney: UNSW.

12.

Hozic

A. A.

True

(2016). Scandalous economics: Gender and the politics of financial crises. Oxford University Press.

13.

Hughes

Tarrant

(2020) The ethics of qualitative secondary analysis. In Hughes

Tarrant

(Eds.), Qualitative secondary analysis (pp 37–58). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526482877.n3 .

14.

Humphreys

Richardson-Foster

Robinson

Sijnja

McKibbin

Stanley

(2023) Never waste a crisis: Initiatives responding to men who use violence during COVID-19. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 8(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1332/23986808Y2023D000000006

15.

Irvine

(2023). First steps in qualitative secondary analysis: Experiences of engaging with the primary research team. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 27(6), 721–733. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2023.2267836

16.

Irwin

(2013). Qualitative secondary data analysis: Ethics, epistemology and context. Progress in Development Studies, 13(4), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464993413490479

17.

Joshi

Paterson

Hinkley

Joss

(2021). The use of telepractice in the family and relationship services sector (CFCA Paper No. 57). Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/2104_cfca_57_the_use_of_telepractice_in_the_family_and_relationship_services_sector_0.pdf

18.

Kinnvall

Rydstrom

(Eds.). (2019). Climate hazards, disasters, and gender ramifications. In Rydström

Kinnvall

(Eds.), Routledge series in hazards, disaster risk and climate change (pp. 1–29). Routledge.

19.

Lee

Flint

McIntosh

(2017, December 1). E-screening to connect the dots on risks to family wellbeing: A literature review [Paper presentation]. The Family & Relationship Services Australia National Conference, Curtin, ACT, Australia. http://frsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/FFRSA-conference-ejournal-4.pdf

20.

Martin

McBride

Masterman

Pote

Mokhtar

Oprea

Sorgenfrei

(2020). COVID-19 and early intervention evidence, challenges and risks relating to virtual and digital delivery. Early Intervention Foundation. https://www.eif.org.uk/report/covid-19-and-early-intervention-evidence-challenges-and-risks-relating-to-virtual-and-digital-delivery

21.

McLaughlin

C. G.

Wyszewianski

(2002). Access to care: Remembering old lessons. Health Services Research, 37(6), 1441–1443. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1475-6773.12171

22.

Michaelsen

Jordan

S. P.

Zarowsky

Koski

(2024). Challenges to the provision of services for sexual and intimate partner violence in Canada during the COVID-19 pandemic: Results of a nationwide web-based survey. Violence Against Women, 31(6–7), 1536–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012241228286

23.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

M. A.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

24.

Moffitt

Aujla

Giesbrecht

C. J.

Grant

Straatman

A.-L.

(2022). Intimate partner violence and COVID-19 in rural, remote, and northern Canada: Relationship, vulnerability and risk. Journal of Family Violence, 37(5), 775–786. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-020-00212-x

25.

O’Donnell

(2007). Access to health care in developing countries: Breaking down demand side barriers. Cadernos De Saúde Pública, 23(12), 2820–2834. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0102-311x2007001200003

26.

Park

(2017). Digital inequalities in rural Australia: A double jeopardy of remoteness and social exclusion. Journal of Rural Studies, 54, 399–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.12.018

27.

Parkinson

Zara

(2013). The hidden disaster: Domestic violence in the aftermath of natural disaster. The Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 28(2), 28–35. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/agispt.20131671

28.

Penchansky

Thomas

J. W.

(1981). The concept of access: Definition and relationship to consumer satisfaction. Medical Care, 19(2), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198102000-00001

29.

Peters

D. H.

Garg

Bloom

Walker

D. G.

Brieger

W. R.

Hafizur Rahman

(2008). Poverty and access to health care in developing coun-tries. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1136(1), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1425.011

30.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

McGowan

True

(2020b). When home becomes the workplace: Family violence, practitioner wellbeing and remote service delivery during COVID-19 restrictions. Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University. https://doi.org/10.26180/13108352

31.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

Meyer

(2022a). Responding to women experiencing domestic and family violence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Exploring experiences and impacts of remote service delivery in Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 27, 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12870

32.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

Meyer

True

(2020c). Responding to Queensland’s ‘shadow pandemic’ during the period of COVID-19 restrictions: Practitioner views on the nature of and responses to violence against women. Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University. https://doi.org/10.26180/5ef9b6ab3f5a1

33.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

True

(2020a). Responding to the ‘shadow pandemic’: Practitioner views on the nature of and responses to violence against women in Victoria, Australia during the COVID-19 restrictions. Monash Gender and Family Violence Prevention Centre, Monash University. https://doi.org/10.26180/5ed9d5198497c

34.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

True

(2022b). When staying home isn't safe: Australian practitioner experiences of responding to intimate partner violence during COVID-19 restrictions. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 6(2), 297–314. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021X16420024310873

35.

Pfitzner

Fitz-Gibbon

Walklate

Meyer

Segrave

(2023). Violence against women during coronavirus. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-29356-6

36.

Pfitzner

Humphreys

Hegarty

(2017). Research review: Engaging men: A multi-level model to support father engagement. Child & Family Social Work, 22(1), 537–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12250

37.

Pfitzner

McGowan

(2023). Locked out or let in? Learning from victim-survivors’ remote help-seeking experiences during COVID-19. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, (published online ahead of print 2023), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1332/23986808Y2023D000000007

38.

Piquero

A. R.

Jennings

W. G.

, et al. (2021). Domestic violence during COVID-19: Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. Council on Criminal Justice.

39.

Polischuk

Fay

D. L.

(2020). Administrative response to consequences of COVID-19 emergency responses: Observations and implications from gender-based violence in Argentina. American Review of Public Administration, 50(6–7), 675–684. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074020942081

40.

Ragoussis

Timmis

(2022). Global transition online (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 995). International Finance Corporation and the World Bank Group.

41.

Reeves

McGowan

Scott

(2023). “It was dangerous, corrosive and cruel but not illegal”: Legal help-seeking behaviours amongst LGBTQA+ domestic and family violence victim-survivors experiencing coercive control in Australia. Journal of Family Violence, 40(1), 27–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-023-00569-9

42.

Richardson Foster

Bracewell

Farrelly

Barter

Chantler

Howarth

Stanley

(2022). Experience of specialist DVA provision under COVID-19: Listening to service user voices to shape future practice. Journal of Gender-Based Violence, 6(3), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868021X16442400262389

43.

Saurman

(2016). Improving access. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 21(1), 36–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819615600001

44.

Schneider

Harknett

McLanahan

(2016). Intimate partner violence in the great recession. Demography, 53(2), 471–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-016-0462-1

45.

Skillmark

Denvall

Kjellgren

Thulin

Agevall-Gross

(2023). Balancing in the pandemic: How social workers respond to new risks when supporting clients who experience domestic violence. European Journal of Social Work, 26(5), 935–947. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2022.2156982

46.

Tarzia

Cornelio

Forsdike

Hegarty

(2018). Women’s experiences receiving support online for intimate partner violence: How does it compare to face-to-face support from a health professional? Interacting with Computers, 30(5), 433–443. https://doi.org/10.1093/iwc/iwy019

47.

Thomas

Barraket

Wilson

C. K.

Holcombe-James

Kennedy

Rennie

Ewing

MacDonald

(2020). Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: The Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2020. RMIT and Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, for Telstra. https://www.digitalinclusionindex.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/TLS_ADII_Report-2020_WebU.pdf

48.

Thomas

McCosker

Parkinson

Hegarty

Featherstone

Kennedy

Holcombe-James

Ormond-Parker

Ganley

(2023). Measuring Australia’s Digital Divide: Australian Digital Inclusion Index: 2023. ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and Telstra. https://doi.org/10.25916/528s-ny91

49.

True

(2013). Gendered violence in natural disasters: Learning from New Orleans, Haiti and Christchurch. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 25(2), 78–89. https://doi.org/10.11157/anzswj-vol25iss2id83

50.

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) . (2020). Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family planning and ending Gender-based violence, female genital mutilation and child marriage, 27 April, Interim Technical Notes. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/impact-covid-19-pandemic-family-planning-and-ending-gender-based-violence-female-genital

51.

Warren

Morley

Clarke

Vitis

Ryan

Carrington

Ball

(2022). Weaponizing COVID-19: How the pandemic influenced the behavior of those who use violence in domestic and family relationships. Violence Against Women, 28(14), 3415–3437. https://doi.org/10.1177/10778012211054871

52.

Weeks

(2004). Creating attractive services which citizens want to attend. Australian Social Work, 57(4), 319–330.

53.

Weller

Davidson

Edwards

Jamieson

(2023). The place and value of large-scale qualitative data analysis. In Big Qual (pp. 3–19). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36324-5_1

54.

World Health Organization (WHO) . (2020, March 11). WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19. Retrieved May 1, 2020, from https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—11-march-2020

Lessons From Lockdown: Designing Flexible,Responsive Domestic and Family Violence Service Systems

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Times of Crisis and Experiences of DFV

Disruptions to DFV Help-Seeking and Support During COVID-19

Theorizing Service Use

Method

Study A: Australian Victim-Survivors Who Sought Help During the COVID-19 Lockdowns

Study B: The Experiences of DFV Practitioners During the First COVID-19 Lockdown in Victoria, Australia

Study C: DFV Practitioners Who Supported Clients Experiencing Abuse During COVID-19 Lockdowns in Victoria, Australia

Recruitment

Data Analysis

Findings

Accessibility: The Benefits of Virtual Support Services

Overcoming Geographic and Mobility Barriers

Improving the Psychological Accessibility of DFV Services

Accommodation: The Usability of Online Help-Seeking Tools

Discussion and Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Notes

Author Biography

References