Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a global public health issue with numerous consequences for physical, psychological, social, and emotional well-being. Thus, prevention of TDV has been a focus of research attention for the past several decades. As part of a comprehensive TDV prevention approach, programs, practices, and policies are needed. Yet, no prior research has reviewed the state of the science on laws and policies designed to prevent or address TDV. Thus, the objective of this scoping review was to identify existing global, empirical research on law and policy for TDV prevention and intervention at the municipal, provincial/state/territorial, or federal/national levels. Through comprehensive searches in eight databases in February 2022 and January 2024, we located 4,826 articles for potential inclusion. From this pool, articles were included if they focused on adolescents and on TDV-relevant law or policy at the local/municipal/school, state/provincial/territorial, or federal/national level(s), and were published in a peer-reviewed journal in English between January 1983 and December 2023. Following title/abstract screening and full-text review, 19 studies were ultimately included. These 19 studies focused on TDV law and policy content (36.8%, n = 7), implementation (36.8%, n = 7), and outcomes (26.3%, n = 5). All studies but one were conducted in high-income countries. Findings from this body of work may be useful as other jurisdictions develop TDV prevention and intervention laws and policies. Future work is also needed to understand the developmental, contextual, and policy context for TDV prevention outside of high-income, Western countries.

Keywords

violence prevention teen dating violence dating violence intimate partner violence/abuse legal intervention

Teen dating violence (TDV) is a global public health problem that impacts the health and well-being of adolescents (McNaughton Reyes et al., 2021; Taquette & Monteiro, 2019). Several recent systematic reviews have focused on programmatic approaches to universal and targeted prevention of TDV (e.g., Arrojo et al., 2024; McNaughton Reyes et al., 2021; Piolanti & Foran, 2022a, 2022b). Although programs are important, a less understood but equally important area is laws and policies focused on TDV prevention and intervention (Cohen & Swift, 1999). Legal and policy approaches are important as they can address risk and protective factors beyond the individual level, and provide standardized guidance to support prevention and intervention efforts on the ground. Thus, the purpose of this scoping review was to summarize existing empirical research on laws and policies (e.g., regulations and statutes) at the federal/national, provincial/state/territorial, and/or local/municipal levels that focused on TDV prevention and/or intervention.

Teen Dating Violence

TDV includes physical, sexual, psychological, and stalking aggression experienced in romantic and/or sexual relationships in adolescence (~ages 11–18; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2023). In their meta-analysis, Wincentak et al. (2017) found average prevalence rates of 20% for physical TDV and 9% for sexual TDV. Psychological aggression prevalence rates vary widely, but national surveys from Canada and the United States suggest that at least 1 in 3 youth experience some form of psychological aggression in a dating relationship (Exner-Cortens et al., 2021; Halpern et al., 2001). Youth who are marginalized due to social systems of oppression are generally at higher risk for both victimization and perpetration (e.g., gender-diverse youth; Exner-Cortens et al., 2023).

A robust body of research now demonstrates linkages between TDV and both immediate and long-term adverse health outcomes (Piolanti et al., 2023). More immediate outcomes include the potential for physical injury (Exner-Cortens et al., 2024; Reidy et al., 2016), as well as homicide (Adhia, Decou et al., 2020). In the longer term, TDV is associated with increased internalizing symptoms (e.g., anxiety and depression), suicidal ideation, substance use, and re-victimization (Piolanti et al., 2023).

The Role of Laws and Policies In Prevention

Given these numerous adverse outcomes, there has been a concerted effort in both research and practice for the past several decades to prevent TDV before it occurs (i.e., universal or primary prevention), as well as among youth who are at higher risk due to systems of marginalization (i.e., targeted or secondary prevention). The vast majority of these efforts have been programmatic and in school-based settings, using curriculum to teach healthy relationship skills to adolescents (McNaughton Reyes et al., 2021). Although critical, programmatic approaches on their own miss other key components of the prevention spectrum. As described by Cohen and Swift (1999), effective violence prevention approaches need to be multi-target, addressing not only individual knowledge and skills but also influencing law and policy. For example, in the adult intimate partner violence literature, research on potential legislative approaches has been a key area of scholarship (e.g., Kearns et al., 2015; Tankard & Iyengar, 2018). Although newer prevention models, such as CDC’s Dating Matters (Niolon, 2021), do emphasize the role of policy in advancing TDV prevention, there has not previously been a comprehensive summary of research on laws and policies designed to prevent and/or respond to TDV victimization and perpetration among adolescents.

Current Study

As laws and policies to prevent TDV are part of a comprehensive prevention approach, we were curious as to the state of global research in this area. We did not locate any prior reviews of research on TDV laws or policies. Thus, the objective of this review was to identify the totality of existing global, empirical research on law and policy for TDV prevention and intervention at the local/municipal, provincial/state/territorial, or federal/national levels, including strengths and gaps. We refer to both laws and policies in this paper due to their interrelated nature. More specifically, the term “laws” refers to things like legislation, statutes, regulations, and case law, while “policies” refers to processes related to addressing problems through goals and strategic planning, such as government initiatives (Teitelbaum et al., 2021). Per Teitelbaum et al. (2021), “laws and policies shape everyday life circumstances, societal institutions, and systems. A policy is not in itself a law, but the policy-making process can identify laws that are needed to accomplish the policy’s goals. Policies set out goals and planned activities; laws establish institutional and legal frameworks to achieve them” (p. S265). We chose to include all different levels of decision-making (federal, state/provincial, local) as globally, legal structure varies by country. We chose scoping review methodology for this project as our goal was to identify the available empirical research in this area and identify knowledge gaps to inform future directions in research, practice, and policy (Peters et al., 2024). We followed the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR; Tricco et al., 2018) checklist to ensure quality of the review.

Methods

Search Strategy

The review protocol for this study was developed with the assistance of a research librarian and registered on the Open Science Framework in January 2022 (https://osf.io/vm4sb/). To locate relevant publications, we searched eight online databases (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, SocINDEX, ERIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, and HeinOnline) on February 10, 2022. To ensure the most current research was captured, we updated the search using the same terms and databases as the original search on January 2, 2024. Search terms were combinations of teen* or youth or adolescen* or pubescen* or juvenile* or tween or pre-pubesc* or prepubesc* or “high school student*” or “junior high school student*” or “middle school student*” AND “dating violence” or “courtship violence” or “intimate partner violence” or “intimate partner abuse” or “intimate partner victimization” or “relationship abuse” or “relationship violence” or “relationship aggression” or “dating abuse” or “dating aggression” or “gender-based violence” or “sexual violence” or “sexual assault” or rape or “physical violence” or stalk* or “electronic dating violence” or “electronic dating abuse” or “technology-assisted dating violence” or “technology-assisted dating abuse” or “cyber dating abuse” or “cyber dating violence” or “cyber dating aggression” AND policy or policies or legislat* or law or “order of protection” or “restraining order” or “protection order*” or “legal response*”. Regula* was also suggested as a search term by the research librarian, to capture regulations and regulatory information. However, we found in test searches that this term returned too many irrelevant articles, and so it was not included. Prior to excluding this term, we reviewed a number of pages of returns in APA PsycInfo, finding that this term pulled primarily unrelated words related to regulation, such as emotion regulation, regulation in sports, or regulation of gender and sexuality, as well as unrelated words related to regular (e.g., regular training, regular screening, and regular assessments). Thus, we chose to exclude it. We also searched using subject heading mapping for the databases that allowed for this (APA PsycINFO, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and ERIC). Figure 1 presents the total returns for the original (2022) and updated (2024) searches.

Figure 1.

PRISMA diagram.

Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria

Searches were restricted to quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-method peer-reviewed articles published in English by December 2023. For this paper, 1983 was chosen as the lower bound because it is the year the first article on TDV was published (Henton et al., 1983). Searches were not restricted by geographic region. To be included, articles had to focus on adolescents (aged 10–18/grades 6–12, or as defined by the article) and on TDV-relevant law or policy at the local/municipal/school, state/provincial/territorial, and/or federal/national level(s). TDV was defined as physical, sexual, cyber, psychological, and/or stalking aggression experienced in dating and/or sexual relationships by age 18. To keep the review focused, we did not include articles that focused on non-dating-related sexual violence (e.g., general sexual harassment) or stalking (e.g., general cyberstalking). Articles were also excluded if they focused on a college or adult sample; developing study protocols; age of consent regarding consensual relationships; statutory rape not specific to dating violence in adolescence; policies to do with SANE/SART/examination post-sexual assault, unless specifically related to dating violence; policies exclusively focused on sexual and reproductive health (including abortion) and nonconsensual image distribution by any perpetrator; sentencing/prosecution outcomes only; juvenile sex offenders not specifically related to dating violence; and child sexual exploitation/child sexual abuse. We also excluded law review articles as the goal of these is to describe potential legal remedies for an issue, and not to conduct empirical research. However, we have included a list of law review articles that we found during our searches as Supplemental Material (Appendix B) for interested readers. We also excluded systematic reviews and meta-analyses, case reports, books/book chapters, conference presentations, and legislative council reports.

Review Procedures

Screening was completed using Covidence, an online systematic review management software. For the original search, to determine whether articles should be included, a team of four research assistants and the first author did title and abstract test screens, to ensure consistency in screening decisions. Next, two independent research assistants reviewed the title and abstract of each of the 2,920 eligible articles, to determine whether these articles met inclusion criteria. Screening of titles and abstracts followed the standard Cochrane process (Lefebvre et al., 2024). Following an independent review of their assigned titles and abstracts, the two research assistants met to discuss decisions and come to a consensus on any discrepancies. If the team could not come to a consensus, a final decision on inclusion was made by the first author. For the updated search, the first author screened the titles and abstracts of the 535 eligible articles. After initial screening of titles and abstracts, 218 articles remained for full-text review (177 from the original search, 41 from the updated search; Figure 1). However, we could not find the full text for 15 articles from the original search (Figure 1), leaving a pool of 162 articles from the original search for full-text review.

Full-text review of the original search was completed by a team of eight research assistants. All research assistants were trained by the first author prior to completing this step. Following the same procedure as for screening titles and abstracts, two research assistants independently reviewed each full text for potential inclusion. For the updated search, the first author screened the full text of the 41 eligible articles. After full-text review, 184 articles were excluded because they did not meet inclusion criteria, and 19 articles from the database searches remained in the sample (12 from the original search and 7 from the updated search; Figure 1). In addition to the database search, we also reviewed the reference lists of all 19 included articles. From this, we found an additional six articles for potential inclusion (Figure 1). After reviewing the abstracts of these six articles, however, none were ultimately included in the final sample (Figure 1).

Data Charting

Data from the 19 included articles were extracted using a standardized template in Qualtrics (Qualtrics XM). The standardized template was developed by the first author, based on her prior work in this area, and tested and revised by the full team prior to extracting the final data. Extracted information included details on the study (e.g., country and year); study methods (e.g., study design); study population (e.g., sample size and demographics); definition of TDV; information about the law/policy (e.g., contents and purpose); measures used (if any) to assess the law/policy and/or TDV outcomes; and a description of outcomes including law/policy strengths and gaps. Following test abstractions with the first author, a team of eight research assistants abstracted information for all 12 articles from the original search. For each included article, two team members conducted data extraction independently and then met to come to a consensus on any discrepancies. Final abstractions were all reviewed by the first author. The first author also completed all abstractions on articles from the updated search.

Results

Study Characteristics

Of the 4,826 references returned in our original and updated database searches, 19 were included in our final sample (Table 1). Included studies were published between 2012 and 2023, though a majority (78.9%, n = 15) were published since 2018. Almost all studies (84.2%, n = 16) were conducted in the United States (U.S.), with the other three studies conducted in Australia, England, and 15 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs; Table 1). Included studies fell into three categories: studies that focused on the analysis of law and policy content (36.8%, n = 7), studies that focused on law and policy implementation (36.8%, n = 7), and studies that focused on law and policy outcomes (26.3%, n = 5). All studies that focused on law and policy content were conducted in the U.S., and used either quantitative or qualitative content analysis (Table 1). Five of the seven studies focused on law and policy implementation were conducted in the U.S., and used a variety of methods (Table 1). Finally, four of the five studies on law and policy outcomes were conducted in the U.S., and all used quantitative methods (Table 1). Of the nine studies (four implementation-focused, five outcome-focused) that collected data from individual youth participants, all reported on participant age or grade level, while only three (33.3%) reported on participant gender, and three (33.3%) on participant race/ethnicity. No included studies reported on the sexual identities of participants.

Table 1.

Summary of Study Location, Design, Purpose, and Sample Characteristics for Included Articles (N = 19).

First Author (Year)	Study Location	Study Design	Sample characteristics					Law/Policy-Relevant Study Purpose
First Author (Year)	Study Location	Study Design	Size	Age	Gender	Race/Ethnicity	Sexual Identity	Law/Policy-Relevant Study Purpose
Content (n = 7)
Adhia, Goddard et al. (2020)	United States	Quantitative content analysis	50 states and D.C. (N = 51)	—	—	—	—	Understand adolescents’ access to CPOs for ADV across the United States.
Adhia et al. (2022)	United States	Quantitative content analysis	50 states and D.C. (N = 51)	—	—	—	—	Explore the scope of existing state law that addresses TDV prevention and/or response in the secondary school setting.
Cascardi et al. (2018)	United States	Qualitative content analysis	50 states (N = 50)	—	—	—	—	Analyze the content of state anti-bullying and TDV prevention statutes and regulations, and examine overlap in definitions and key features.
Hall et al. (2019)	United States	Qualitative content analysis	50 states (N = 50)	—	—	—	—	Analyze the content of state policies regarding school-based sex education across the United States.
Lee et al. (2023)	United States	Qualitative content analysis	50 states and D.C. (N = 51)	—	—	—	—	To explore which states’ civil DVPO statutes allow minors to petition for DVPOs.
Ravi et al. (2022)	United States	Qualitative content analysis	27 states	—	—	—	—	Analyze state TDV legislation that applies to schools and compare the contents of legislation across states.
Rochford et al. (2022)	United States	Qualitative content analysis	30 states	—	—	—	—	Describe and rate school-based state TDV legislation content, based on 34 policy components.
Implementation (n = 7)
Black et al. (2017)	United States	Quantitative (survey)	213 domestic violence shelters^a	—	—	—	—	Determine if the presence of state TDV law is associated with domestic violence shelters’ implementation of TDV prevention programming in schools.
Brandt and Johnson-Motoyama (2022)	United States	Case study (document analysis + interviews)	3 states (CT, OH, OK)	—	—	—	—	Examine the process of adding “dating relationships” to CPO laws, and compare this process across 3 states with different levels of gender inequality.
Douglas and Walsh (2023)	Queensland, Australia	Qualitative case review	30 cases	14–17	Majority male^b	Indigenous youth were over-represented^b	—	Analyze 30 cases prosecuted and sentenced under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act (Queensland) for young people who had been charged with at least one dating and/or family violence-related offense between 2013/14 and 2018/19.
Jackson et al. (2014)	Texas, USA	Quantitative policy review	72 school districts in the state of Texas (N = 72)	Included school districts serve K-12	Enrolled student popula-tion: 51.3% Boys 48.7% Girls	Average district demographics: Black—14.8%; White—27.1%; Hispanic—51.7%^c	—	Examine school districts’ TDV policy implementation, consequences for offenders, rights of victims, and the accessibility of the policies for students and parents by reviewing district codes of conduct and parent handbooks.
Khubchandani et al. (2018)	United States	Mixed-method survey	Principals: 750; Counselors: 550; School nurses: 750 (N = 2,050)	—	—	—	—	Investigate if school personnel in the United States have sufficient resources and training to effectively implement TDV policies.
Meiksin et al. (2020)	England, United Kingdom	Policy review	4 intervention schools and 2 control (N = 6) Policy review occurred in 2 schools	Students were in years (grades) 9–10. (ages 13–15)	—	—	—	Describe the implementation of a whole-school TDV prevention and intervention program (Project Respect), including policy review.
Rueda et al. (2018)	Texas, United States	Mixed-method policy review	15 Independent School Districts (ISDs) with 73 high schools	High school-aged	—	Majority Hispanic (M = 65.3%, range, 20–100%)	—	Describe to what extent school districts within a large metropolitan area in Texas were implementing the state’s school-based TDV law, and assess whether policies and programs were available in Spanish.
Outcomes (n = 5)
Black et al. (2022)	United States	Quantitative	26 states	YRBS (2007) included youth in grades 9–12	—	—	—	Examine how physical TDV prevalence and political factors are related to the existence and strength of state legislation requiring school-based TDV prevention/intervention.^e
Harland et al. (2021)	United States	Quantitative	36 states	YRBS (2015) included youth in grades 9–12	—	—	—	Determine if the presence of state-level TDV education laws was associated with student-reported physical and sexual TDV prevalence.
Hoefer et al. (2015)	United States	Quantitative	43 states	YRBS (2011) included youth in grades 9–12	—	—	—	Examine the effect of state-level differences in TDV policy quality for CPOs, state economic conditions, and political party control of state governmental institutions on the prevalence of physical TDV in the sampled states.
Hoefer et al. (2012)	United States	Quantitative	34 states	YRBS (2007) included youth in grades 9–12				Examine the effect of physical TDV prevalence, state economic conditions, and political party control of state governmental institutions on the quality of TDV policy for CPOs in the sampled states.^e
Maxwell et al. (2022)	15 low-and-middle-income countries^d	Quantitative	7,321 ever-partnered, non-widowed adolescent girls	13–19 (Mean [SD] age: 18.0 (1.1))	100% girls	—^d		Assess whether national laws that promote gender equity and freedom from violence are associated with a lower past-year risk of physical and sexual intimate partner violence.

Note. CPOs = civil protection orders; ADV = adolescent dating violence; TDV = teen dating violence; SD = standard deviation; DVPO = domestic violence protection order.

Between 1 and 14 domestic violence shelters responded from each state except for Mississippi, Kentucky, and Hawaii (no shelters from these three states responded).

There were 270 total cases from 2013/14 to 2018/19, of which only 30 had information to determine whether it was a case of dating violence or family violence. Demographics are only provided for the 30 total cases that reported on dating and/or family violence, and were not broken down by violence type. Of these 30 cases, 76% of offenders were male, and 43% were Indigenous. Eighty percent of the 30 cases were for TDV only, and three cases involved both family and dating violence.

Other average district racial/ethnic breakdown: Asian: 4.1%; Native Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander: 0.1%; American Indian or Alaska Native: 0.4%; Two or more races: 1.9%.

15 countries that have administered the Domestic Violence Module in a Demographic and Health survey since 2015. Most countries were in Non-Mediterranean Africa (n = 9) and South/Southeast Asia (n = 3), with one each in Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and North Africa/West Asia/Europe.

We note that in these two studies, the dependent variable was the presence and strength of school-based state TDV laws (Black et al., 2022) and the quality of state-level TDV policy for CPOs (Hoefer et al., 2012), and the independent variable was TDV prevalence. Thus, for these two studies, the outcome is differences in policy presence, strength, or quality based on state-level TDV prevalence. For Black et al. (2022), prevalence data were from 2007 and laws explored were those passed after 2007. For Hoefer et al. (2012), prevalence data were from 2007 and laws explored were those in effect as of December 2009. For the other three outcome studies (Harland et al., 2021, Hoefer et al., 2015, Maxwell et al., 2022), the outcome is differences in physical and sexual TDV prevalence based on the existence or quality of relevant laws. For Harland et al. (2021), laws were those passed prior to January 1, 2016, with TDV data collected in 2015. For Hoefer et al. (2015), laws were those in effect as of December 2009, with TDV data collected in 2011.

Focus of Studies

Article summaries are provided in Table 2. A full description of key findings from all articles is provided in Supplemental Material (Appendix A).

Table 2.

Key Study Elements as Related to Types of TDV Laws and Policies (N = 19).

First Author (Year)	TDV Label	Dating Definition	Definition of Youth	Level/Type of Law/Policy	Focus of Law/Policy	Description of Law/Policy
Content (n = 7)
Adhia, Goddard et al. (2020) ^b	Intimate partner violence (IPV)	Current or former intimate partner	Individuals not yet the age of majority in their state (minors). Commonly age 18 but varies by state.	State/Justice	Legal remedy (civil)	State statutes relevant to obtaining civil protection orders
Adhia et al. (2022) ^b	TDV	—	Secondary school-age	State/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	State laws pertaining to TDV prevention and/or response in secondary school settings
Cascardi et al. (2018)	TDV	Dating or romantic relationship	Students in K-12 schools	State/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	School-based TDV prevention statutes and regulations (compared to the content of anti-bullying prevention statutes and regulations)
Hall et al. (2019)	-Sexual dating violence-Intimate partner violence (IPV)	Sexual or romantic relationship	Students in K-12 schools	State/Education	Prevention	State policies regarding sex education in schools were analyzed to determine contents related to sexual behavior, sexual relationships, and approach to sexual identity diversity
Lee et al. (2023)	TDV	Romantic relationship (sexual and nonsexual), stalking	Minors (individuals under age 18 who do not have legal status of an adult through emancipation)	State/Justice	Legal remedy (civil)	State laws on civil DVPOs
Ravi et al. (2022) ^c	TDV	As per policy	Students in K-12 schools	State/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	State legislation for addressing TDV in U.S. schools
Rochford et al. (2022) ^d	TDV	Relationship where one or both partners are between 13 and 20 years of age.	Students in K-12 schools	State/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	School-based state TDV policies
Implementation (n = 7)
Black et al. (2017) ^c	TDV	Dating relationship	High school and middle school students	State/Education	Prevention	State legislation requiring TDV prevention programming in schools
Brandt and Johnson-Motoyama (2022)	TDV	Casual or committed sexual or romantic relationships where at least one person is a minor.	Minors (as per state policy)	State/Justice	Legal remedy (civil)	Civil protection order laws that have incorporated “dating relationships” as an included category
Douglas and Walsh (2023)	ADV	Intimate personal relationships of minors.	10–17 years of age	State/Justice	Legal remedy (criminal)	Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act
Jackson et al. (2014)	TDV	Current dating partner	Students in K-12 schools	Local/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	District codes of conduct, websites, and parent/student handbooks were analyzed to assess implementation of state legislation requiring TDV content.
Khubchandani et al. (2018)	ADV	—^a	—^a	Local/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	Protocols to deal with incidents of TDV were measured, as well as knowledge, training, and perspectives of school personnel.
Meiksin et al. (2020)	Adolescent dating and relationship violence	Current or former dating or boyfriend/girlfriend partners	Grades 9 and 10 (ages 13–15)	Local/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	School rules and policies aimed to prevent and respond to gender-based harassment and dating and relationship violence
Rueda et al. (2018)	TDV	As per policy	High school-aged	State & Local/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	School-level implementation of the state-level, school-based TDV law
Outcomes (n = 5)
Black et al. (2022) ^c	TDV	Dating relationship	Ages 12–18	State/Education	-Prevention-Intervention	State policies requiring or recommending TDV prevention/intervention in schools
Harland et al. (2021) ^d	TDV	Dating relationship	Grades 9–12	State/ Education	Prevention	Legislation requiring TDV education in schools
Hoefer et al. (2015) ^b	TDV	Girlfriend or boyfriend	High school students/legal definition of minors	State/Justice	Legal remedy (civil)	State legislation regarding youth access to civil protection orders
Hoefer et al. (2012) ^b	TDV	Girlfriend or boyfriend	High school students/legal definition of minors	State/Justice	Legal remedy (civil)	State legislation regarding youth access to civil protection orders
Maxwell et al. (2022)	Intimate partner violence (IPV)	Ever married or lived with a partner	13–19	National/Justice	Legal remedy (civil, criminal)	Laws on Violence against women and girls Index (LoVI): includes national legislation against child marriage, sexual harassment and assault, and marital rape and domestic violence

Note. ADV = adolescent dating violence; TDV = teen dating violence; DVPO = domestic violence protection order.

Focus is on high school staff, not youth.

Same research group.

Law and Policy Content

All seven studies analyzing TDV law and policy content focused on state-level laws in the U.S. Two of these seven studies analyzed state statutes relating to access to civil protection orders (CPOs) for TDV victims (Adhia, Goddard et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2023), while the other five presented state statutes and regulations that pertained to TDV prevention and intervention activities within K-12 school settings (Adhia et al., 2022; Cascardi et al., 2018; Hall et al., 2019; Ravi et al., 2022; Rochford et al., 2022).

Lee et al. (2023) report that as of May 2020, minors were eligible to apply for CPOs in all U.S. states. Cross-state differences, however, remain on age of eligibility, and whether minors can self-petition (Supplemental Material Appendix A). These studies also recommend that cyber acts of dating violence (Adhia, Goddard et al., 2020), as well as dating violence-related stalking (Lee et al., 2023), are specifically included in future laws and policies.

In terms of school-based prevention and intervention, Adhia et al. (2022) report that as of September 2020, 38 states had a relevant law,¹ but the comprehensiveness of these laws varied. For example, only 15 of the 38 laws (40%) provide a definition of TDV. Laws also are more heavily focused on prevention than intervention responses (Supplemental Material Appendix A). Rochford et al. (2022) scored the quality of the 30 state-level, school-based TDV prevention laws enacted as of 2019, finding that out of a total possible quality score of 68, the mean (SD) score was 12.59 (7.09). More recent laws had higher scores (Supplemental Material Appendix A). They concluded that law quality could be improved by expanding the scope to cover both public and private schools; incorporating more comprehensive TDV training; establishing provisions for school-based protection orders; and eliminating parent “opt-out” for healthy relationships programming (Rochford et al., 2022). Cascardi et al. (2018) compared school-based TDV and bullying prevention laws, finding that (as of 2018) all states had bullying prevention laws, of which 49 of 50 statutes (98%) defined bullying. Overall, bullying prevention laws were much more comprehensive than existing TDV prevention laws (Supplemental Material Appendix A). Finally, Hall et al. (2019) examined another set of related policies—state-level sex education policies—finding that 42% included content regarding healthy sexual or romantic relationships, and 54% had content regarding sexual violence.

Law and Policy Implementation

The seven included law and policy implementation articles covered a wide variety of topics, though still were primarily focused on the U.S. (Table 2). Topics covered by these articles included: implementation of TDV prevention programming in schools by shelter staff in the U.S., and whether the presence of state laws on TDV was associated with shelters’ offering of this programming (Black et al., 2017); the process of integrating reference to dating relationships into CPO laws in three states that had high, moderate, and low scores on the Gender Inequality Index (Brandt & Johnson-Motoyama, 2022); characteristics of youth cases charged under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act in Queensland, Australia (Douglas & Walsh, 2023); existence and strength of school division policy in Texas per what is required in state-level, school-based TDV law (Jackson et al., 2014); knowledge and availability of TDV policies and protocols from the perspectives of school personnel in the U.S. (Khubchandani et al., 2018); a review of school policy to address TDV, as part of a pilot study of a larger whole-school intervention (Project Respect) in England (Meiksin et al., 2020); and the implementation of Texas’ school-based TDV law in high schools in 15 Independent School Districts (Rueda & Fawson, 2018; Table 2). Broadly, these articles highlight the importance of coalitions and cross-sector partnerships to facilitate law and policy implementation; the need to look for disproportionality as these laws and policies are rolled out; the need to provide explicit protections for and services to TDV victims; and the importance of standard protocols and training for implementing staff (e.g., school staff) (see Appendix A in Supplemental Material for full details on key findings for and recommendations from all included articles).

Law and Policy Outcomes

Two of the law and policy outcome papers focused on the association between state-level TDV prevalence and the presence or strength of state-level laws to prevent TDV in schools (Black et al., 2022; Harland et al., 2021), two focused on state-level laws regarding youth access to CPOs (Hoefer et al., 2012, 2015), and one focused on if a country’s score on the Laws on Violence against women and girls Index (LoVI) predicted rates of intimate partner violence for ever-partnered, non-widowed girls aged 13–19 in 15 LMICs (Maxwell et al., 2022). All five studies used nationally representative, secondary data sources: the four U.S. studies used Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance Survey (YRBS) data from 2007, 2011, and 2015, and the one international study used data from 15 LMICs that had administered the Domestic Violence Module within their country’s Demographic and Health survey since 2015 (Supplemental Material Appendix A).

The two studies focused on state-level, school-based laws found no association between state-level physical or sexual TDV prevalence and the existence or strength of the law (Supplemental Material Appendix A). The two studies focused on CPOs found that more comprehensive state-level laws (based on things such as whether teens could self-petition, whether there was a parental notification requirement, etc.) were associated with lower rates of state-level physical TDV (Hoefer et al., 2015), but that, conversely, the presence of more comprehensive laws was not related to state-level physical TDV prevalence (Hoefer et al., 2012). However, more comprehensive laws were more likely in states with Democratic control of government institutions (Hoefer et al., 2012). The one international study found that overall, comprehensive violence against women and girls laws were associated with higher odds of past-year sexual violence among adolescent girls (Table 2). However, when laws were broken down by type, results varied (e.g., laws specifying a legal age of marriage over 18 were related to lower odds of past-year sexual intimate partner violence among adolescent girls). Finally, girls in countries with the highest LoVI scores were significantly less likely to experience past-year physical intimate partner violence than girls in countries with the lowest LoVI scores. Maxwell et al. (2022) conclude that it is important to assess the effects of laws designed to prevent violence against adult women among adolescent girls, as they may have differential impacts based on developmental stage.

Discussion

In this scoping review, we focused on empirical research that had explored TDV law and policy since the early 1980s. To identify the entire pool of relevant articles, we included published articles that focused on any level and any type of TDV law or policy, and that used any study design. We identified 19 studies that explored the content, implementation, and outcomes of laws and policies designed for TDV prevention and intervention. Overall, we found that research on TDV law and policy is quite new, with most studies published since 2018. Further, almost all studies were from the U.S. Critical findings of the review are summarized in Table 3, and implications for future research, policy, and practice are summarized in Table 4.

Table 3.

Critical Findings.

• We found 19 articles that explored laws and policies for TDV prevention and intervention.• Seven of these articles focused on law and policy content. All of these studies were from the U.S. and focused on either CPOs or policy for K-12 schools.○ CPO laws need to clearly define eligibility criteria and include all relevant behaviors, including technology-facilitated TDV and stalking. Minors should be able to self-petition for CPOs in all jurisdictions.○ School-based laws should provide funding for mandated initiatives; training for school staff; and information on recommended prevention and intervention approaches. Points of overlap with related forms of aggression (e.g., bullying)—and implications for policy—need research attention.• Seven of these articles focused on law and policy implementation. Six of the seven studies were from the United States. These articles suggest the importance of coalitions and cross-sector partnerships for advancing law and policy implementation, the need for analysis that explores disproportionately in the application of laws and policies, and the necessity of quality/compliance checks to enable accountability mechanisms.• Five of these articles focused on law and policy outcomes. Four of the five studies were from the U.S. One study focused on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The existence, strength, or quality of TDV laws may be associated with TDV prevalence, but additional research is needed.• Research outside the U.S. is critically needed. Only 1 of the 19 studies focused on LMICs. Future studies also need to explore the availability of TDV-relevant laws and policies in settings outside the U.S.

Table 4.

Implications for Practice, Policy, and Research.

Area	Recommendations
Practice	• Practitioners working with TDV victims should know what (if any) civil legal remedies for TDV are available in their jurisdiction, and eligibility criteria.• Training is likely needed to support judicial decision-making in cases of TDV. For adult IPV, judicial decision-making for CPOs is subject to a number of factors (e.g., Lucken et al., 2015), for which training is often provided.• School leaders should be aware of relevant laws in their jurisdiction, to ensure their TDV prevention and intervention policies are in compliance.
Policy	• Within the U.S., school-based laws are still needed in 13 states (as of 2020). School-based laws (and related policies) should address both prevention and intervention, and need to provide funding for mandated work, as well as training for school staff. For CPOs, eligibility needs to be clearer, and youth should be able to self-petition for CPOs in all states.• Outside of the U.S., the availability of TDV-relevant laws and policies is largely unknown. Youth voice needs to be centered in any new policy development.
Research	• Research on TDV laws and policy content, implementation, and outcomes outside of the U.S. is critically needed. A review of available TDV surveillance data globally would support this work. Research also needs to focus on the applicability of TDV law and policy research in LMICs.• Research evaluating the effectiveness of potential interventions for perpetrators of TDV, to inform future laws and policies, is needed.• Youth voice needs to be centered in future research on TDV law and policy.

In terms of what is included in research on existing laws and policies, all of the included content studies were from the U.S., and thus similar work is needed in other countries. Per the reviewed studies, in the U.S., minors can apply for CPOs in all 50 states, though eligibility criteria vary. For future jurisdictions developing CPO laws, it is important that they clearly define TDV and include all relevant behaviors, including technology-facilitated TDV and stalking; that minors are able to self-petition; and that eligibility criteria are clear (e.g., type(s) of eligible relations, type(s) of act(s) covered, minimum age of eligibility) so that minors know when and how they can apply.

Although CPO policies are promising in terms of potential civil legal remedies for TDV, we did not locate any research that included youth perspectives on the relevance or feasibility of this approach. Klein et al. (2013), in an unpublished grantee report, explored youth responses to the New York state CPO law, which was expanded to include dating youth in 2008. They found that in the first two years of the law, there was limited use and that teens reported a number of barriers to potentially using this remedy (e.g., fears about how useful and accessible orders are). Thus, although it is helpful to know the content of existing state CPO laws, research focusing on youth use and perceptions is critically needed. Youth also can be engaged in the development of new CPO laws, as well as the creation or revision of school-based policies that apply state-level TDV laws at the local level (Jenkins et al., 2020; Percy-Smith, 2007).

As of September 2020, 38 U.S. states had some form of K-12 school-based TDV law.² Although this is important as schools are a critical venue for prevention and intervention, the comprehensiveness of these laws and related policies varies by state. We also did not find any research on school-based TDV laws outside the U.S. Other areas for improvement include that most of the existing laws have unfunded mandates (e.g., for in-school prevention programming), no required training for school staff, and a lack of clarity on what schools should/need to do if TDV happens. Without training or funding, it is unlikely that these policy directives will be implemented. Cascardi et al. (2018) also raise important points about the potential overlap between school-based bullying and TDV laws and policies. For example, asking schools to implement distinct policies for all forms of youth interpersonal violence may feel overwhelming, and does not acknowledge that these behaviors are often connected and can co-occur (Cascardi et al., 2018). On the other hand, the underlying etiology and consequences of these behaviors are not identical, and thus there are likely areas where they need distinct solutions (e.g., the nature of a romantic vs. a peer relationship; Cascardi et al., 2018). Future research is needed to determine the appropriate content, implementation, and outcomes of “a coordinated set of statutes and regulations (i.e., an omnibus law) for a variety of school-based aggressive behavior (e.g., bullying, TDV, sexual harassment, gun violence) . . . that are responsive to the overlapping and distinct components of each form of behavior” (Cascardi et al., 2018, p. 3288). This also suggests that to implement these policies, creativity may be needed. For example, per Hall et al. (2019), TDV prevention might be included in another related set of policies, such as policies on sex education, if that seems more feasible in a given jurisdiction.

Many of these content questions naturally lead to questions about law and policy implementation. In general, articles we located on this topic suggested the importance of coalitions and cross-sector partnerships for advancing law and policy implementation, the need for analysis that explores disproportionality in the application of laws and policies, and the necessity of quality/compliance checks to enable accountability for implementation. Given the variable implementation reported in these studies, there is also room for the integration of dissemination and implementation science into TDV policy roll-out efforts (Hoagwood et al., 2020), including a more in-depth understanding of facilitators of and barriers to TDV law and policy implementation. Finally, like with studies on content, the majority of implementation articles (5 of 7) focused on the school setting, while only two focused on the justice setting. One of these two was the only article in our review that addressed perpetrator behavior (all other justice-based studies focused on victim eligibility for CPOs). As we know much less about effective intervention approaches for perpetrators of TDV (Camacho Soto et al., 2024), this is an important area for future research.

In terms of associations between the existence, strength, or quality of TDV laws and TDV prevalence, only five studies explored this, and four of these five were from the U.S. Two of these studies looked at state-level, school-based laws, and found no association with state-level physical and sexual TDV prevalence. Two looked at state-level CPO laws and found that more comprehensive CPO laws were associated with lower state-level prevalence of physical TDV, but that state-level prevalence of physical TDV was not predictive of law quality. Finally, one international study focused on LMICs and laws on violence against women and girls, and found a complex pattern of findings, pointing to the need for developmentally- and contextually relevant policy. Of the U.S. law outcome studies, 75% used YRBS data and were from the same research group. Of the studies using YRBS data, only one occurred after the YRBS TDV question change in 2013, a change which resulted in the physical TDV question having a higher threshold of severity, only including dating youth, and a new question on sexual TDV (Vagi et al., 2015). Thus, in the U.S., researchers should replicate these studies for all states using data from the revised YRBS, as well as other sources of data as available (as the revised YRBS still only has two questions on TDV, one on physical TDV and one on sexual TDV, which does not provide a comprehensive understanding of potential associations between TDV laws and overall TDV prevalence).

Further, in outcome studies, it is important for future work to explore comprehensive and meaningful ways to score law/policy quality, and not just the presence or absence of relevant laws. In 2010, Break The Cycle produced State Law Report Cards for TDV-relevant CPO laws, but the report and scoring criteria are no longer available, and it does not appear the report has been updated since (Break The Cycle, 2010). In our review, two recent studies (Black et al., 2022; Rochford et al., 2022) presented comprehensive TDV policy scoring guides (both for school-based policies) that could be tested in future research. Testing is important as scoring in meaningful ways can be challenging (for example, how does a statistically significant decline in TDV that is associated with higher law quality relate to practical differences? How does this analysis help policymakers understand how to improve legislation?), and thus careful research in this area is needed.

Finally, out of all 19 included studies, only one study focused on LMICs, with all others focused on high-income countries. Understanding youth needs across differently resourced settings—and how those needs may differ (i.e., unique developmental contexts)—is a critical area for future research. In addition, per the U.S.-centric nature of the studies in this review, almost all focused on state-level laws and policies, with much less research at the federal or local levels. However, a few of the implementation studies did look at how state-level law was taken up in policy at the local level (Black et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2014; Rueda et al., 2018). This type of research is important to understand how laws are interpreted and how they function when they are implemented in real-world settings. Given the interconnected nature of laws and policies (Teitelbaum et al., 2021), and the different roles many levels of government and institutions play in their effective implementation, future research that explores policy creation and implementation across levels and in different global settings is critical.

Limitations and Future Directions

We completed a comprehensive search, along with a search update to ensure we identified more recent studies. However, it is still possible we did not pick up all relevant studies. In addition, laws and policies are constantly changing and emerging, and there is generally a lag between the creation and implementation of laws/policies and empirical research. Creative approaches to keeping up with the changing legal landscape within empirical research are important to consider, though beyond the scope of this review. We also did not include individual intervention studies which may have included but did not specifically evaluate a policy element (e.g., Niolon, 2021; Taylor et al., 2013). Second, most of our articles were from the U.S. The U.S.-centric nature of our findings may be due to our inclusion of English-language articles only (reflecting the limitations of the research team), and our focus on peer-reviewed articles. It is also possible that other terms we did not use (such as violence against women and girls) are more relevant in other settings, or that we may have found more outside the U.S. if we had included gray literature sources (e.g., conference presentations, and reports) or book chapters. Finally, it is possible that the way TDV is currently conceptualized is most applicable in high-income countries, and this is why there is an apparent “lack” of research on TDV in LMICs. For example, in the one LMIC study that was included, 92% of the adolescent sample (ages 13–19) were currently married or cohabitating (Maxwell et al., 2022). We also only located research on two types of laws and policies (CPOs, school-based), but there is a broader suite of laws and policies potentially available (e.g., employment law, tenancy law) that future research can explore. In future work, it is also important that if data are collected with youth participants, sexual and gender identity are consistently reported. Finally, as this was a scoping review, an assessment of study quality was outside the parameters (Peters et al., 2024).

Our review is a first step in highlighting the available research on TDV laws and policies but also points to key areas for future research, including global scans of available TDV surveillance data and laws. First, to understand law and policy outcomes, regularly collected TDV surveillance data are critical. As noted above, in the U.S., these data are collected every two years through the YRBS, conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. However, we are not aware of research exploring the availability of such data globally. For example, in our own context in Canada, there is no regular data collection on TDV prevalence, and the first national data were only collected in 2017/18 as part of the Canadian Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study. Research summarizing the availability of global surveillance data for TDV would be extremely useful to inform policy development and evaluation. Second, there is also limited information on the actual availability and content of policies and laws related to TDV outside the context of the U.S. Thus, another critical next step is to expand research on available policies, to broaden understanding of global TDV laws, and to highlight key innovations and strategies in different countries and settings.

Conclusion

Existing research on TDV law and policy is primarily from the U.S., with a focus on two main types: CPOs and school-based laws and policies. The included studies provide information on law and policy content, implementation, and outcomes that may be useful as other jurisdictions develop TDV prevention and intervention laws. The findings of this review point to a number of recommendations for this work. In addition, findings underscore the need to understand the developmental, contextual, and policy context for TDV prevention outside of high-income, Western countries.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251320994 – Supplemental material for Research on Law and Policy to Prevent Teen Dating Violence: Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-tva-10.1177_15248380251320994 for Research on Law and Policy to Prevent Teen Dating Violence: Scoping Review by Deinera Exner-Cortens, Sasha Sharma and Wendy Craig in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251320994 – Supplemental material for Research on Law and Policy to Prevent Teen Dating Violence: Scoping Review

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-tva-10.1177_15248380251320994 for Research on Law and Policy to Prevent Teen Dating Violence: Scoping Review by Deinera Exner-Cortens, Sasha Sharma and Wendy Craig in Trauma, Violence, & Abuse

Footnotes

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Cindy Chen, Shawna Gray, Saskia Groot, Fiza Hasan, Jenna Himer, Jordan Keough, Loyce Sakuhuni and Elisabeth Vezina for their support on this project.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Dr. Exner-Cortens’ work was supported in part by funding from the Alberta Children’s Hospital Research Institute. This project was also supported in part by funding from the Silver Gummy Foundation. The funders had no role in the study design; collection, analysis or interpretation of data; writing of the report; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

ORCID iD

Deinera Exner-Cortens

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biographies

Deinera Exner-Cortens, PhD, MPH, is an associate professor and Canada Research Chair (Tier 2) in Childhood Health Promotion in the Department of Psychology at the University of Calgary. She is also the Scientific Co-Director of PREVNet, Canada’s healthy youth relationships hub. Her research focuses on teen dating violence and suicide prevention, as well as youth healthy relationships promotion.

Sasha Sharma, MA, MSW, RSW, is a registered social worker and holds a Master of Social Work degree from the University of Calgary. Her research interests include teen dating violence prevention, expressive arts therapy, and the prevention and treatment of child sexual abuse. She currently works as a trauma therapist in Edmonton, AB.

Wendy Craig, PhD, is a professor in the Department of Psychology at Queen’s University, Canada. As co-founder of PREVNet (Promoting Relationships and Eliminating Violence Network), she has transformed the science of bullying and healthy relationships into evidence-based practice, intervention, and policy. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society and received the Order of Canada in recognition of her work.

References

Adhia

DeCou

C. R.

Huppert

Ayyagari

(2020). Murder–suicides perpetrated by adolescents: Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 50(2), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12607

*Adhia

Goddard

Kernic

M. A.

Fan

M. D.

Vavilala

M. S.

Rivara

F. P.

(2020). Variation in state laws on access to civil protection orders for adolescents experiencing intimate partner violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 66(5), 610–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2019.11.311

*Adhia

Kray

Bowen

Kernic

M. A.

Miller

(2022). Assessment of variation in US state laws addressing the prevention of and response to teen dating violence in secondary schools. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(8), 797. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.1735

Adhia

Paladhi

U. R.

Ellyson

A. M.

(2024). State laws addressing teen dating violence in US high schools: A differences-in-differences study. Preventive Medicine, 182, 107937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.017937

Arrojo

Santirso

F. A.

Lila

Gracia

Conchell

(2024). Dating violence prevention programs for at-risk adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 74, 101893. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2023.101893

Black

B. M.

Hawley

Hoefer

Barnett

T. M.

(2017). Factors related to teenage dating violence prevention programming in schools. Children & Schools, 39(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/cs/cdx007

*Black

Ravi

Hoefer

(2022). Determining the existence and strength of teen dating violence policy: Testing a comparative state internal determinants model. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(5–6), 2165–2189. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520935529

*Brandt

Johnson-Motoyama

(2022). Dating violence, protection orders, and gender inequality: A cross-state analysis of policy formulation and implementation. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(19–20), NP17640–17661. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605211028327

Break The Cycle. (2010). State law report card. https://www.breakthecycle.org/content-summary/state-law-report-cards/

10.

Camacho Soto

J. N.

Exner-Cortens

McMorris

Madigan

(2024). Secondary and tertiary prevention for adolescent dating violence: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(5), 3938–3950. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241265384

11.

*Cascardi

King

C. M.

Rector

DelPozzo

(2018). School-based bullying and teen dating violence prevention laws: Overlapping or distinct? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(21), 3267–3297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518798357

12.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). Fast facts: Preventing teen dating violence. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Division of Violence Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/teendatingviolence/fastfact.html

13.

Cohen

Swift

(1999). The spectrum of prevention: Developing a comprehensive approach to injury prevention. Injury Prevention, 5(3), 203–207. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.5.3.203

14.

*Douglas

Walsh

(2023). Adolescent family and dating violence and the criminal law response. Journal of Family Violence, 38, 287–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-022-00373-x

15.

Exner-Cortens

Baker

Craig

(2021). The national prevalence of adolescent dating violence in Canada. Journal of Adolescent Health, 69(3), 495–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adohealth.2021.01.032

16.

Exner-Cortens

Baker

Craig

(2023). Canadian adolescents’ experiences of dating violence: Associations with social power imbalances. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 38(1–2), NP1762–NP1786. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221092072

17.

Exner-Cortens

Camacho Soto

J. N.

Yeates

K. O.

van Donkelaar

Craig

(2024). The association between teen dating violence and concussion. Journal of Adolescent Health, 75(6), 939–946. https://doi.org/j.jadohealth.2024.07.019

18.

*Hall

W. J.

Jones

B. L. H.

Witkemper

K. D.

Collins

T. L.

Rodgers

G. K.

(2019). State policy on school-based sex education: A content analysis focused on sexual behaviors, relationships, and identities. American Journal of Health Behavior, 43(3), 506–519. https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.43.3.6https://dx.doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.43.3.6

19.

Halpern

C. T.

Oslak

S. G.

Young

M. L.

Martin

S. L.

Kupper

L. L.

(2001). Partner violence among adolescents in opposite-sex romantic relationships: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(10), 1679–1685. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.10.1679

20.

*Harland

K. K.

Vakkalanka

J. P.

Peek-Asa

Saftlas

A. F.

(2021). State-level teen dating violence education laws and teen dating violence victimisation in the USA: A cross-sectional analysis of 36 states. Injury Prevention, 27(3), 257–263. https://doi.org/10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043657

21.

Henton

Cate

Koval

Lloyd

Christopher

(1983). Romance and violence in dating relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 4, 467–482.

22.

Hoagwood

K. E.

Purtle

Spandorfer

Peth-Pierce

Horwitz

S. M.

(2020). Aligning dissemination and implementation science with health policies to improve children’s mental health. American Psychologist, 75(8), 1130–1145. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000706

23.

*Hoefer

Black

Ricard

(2015). The impact of state policy on teen dating violence prevalence. Journal of Adolescence, 44, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.07.006

24.

*Hoefer

Black

Salehin

(2012). Dating violence policy: Making the grade. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 39(4), 9–24.

25.

*Jackson

R. D.

Bouffard

L. A.

Fox

K. A.

(2014). Putting policy into practice: Examining school districts’ implementation of teen dating violence legislation. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25(4), 503–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403412475136

26.

Jenkins

McGuinness

Haines-Saah

Andres

Ziemann

Morris

Waddell

(2020). Equipping youth for meaningful policy engagement: An environmental scan. Health Promotion International, 35, 852–865. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz071

27.

Kearns

M. C.

Reidy

D. E.

Valle

L. A.

(2015). The role of alcohol policies in preventing intimate partner violence: A review of the literature. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 76(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2015.76.21

28.

*Khubchandani

Somerson

Davis

(2018). Adolescent dating violence prevention: perspectives of school personnel in the United States. Domestic Violence Report, 23(3), 33–44.

29.

Klein

Salomon

Elwyn

Barasch

Powers

J. L.

Maley

Gilmer

J. A.

Pirchner

Harris

Tiffany

J. S.

Exner-Cortens

(2013). An Exploratory Study of Juvenile Orders of Protection as a Remedy for Dating Violence (Document No. 242131). p. 172.

30.

*Lee

Kanaboshi

Petlakh

(2023). Domestic violence protection orders for teen dating violence: An analysis of state laws and practices. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 24(4), 2789–2807. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380221113782

31.

Lefebvre

Glanville

Briscoe

Featherstone

Littlewood

Metzendorf

Noel-Storr

Paynter

Rader

Thomas

Wieland

L. S.

(2024) Chapter 4: Searching for and selecting studies. In Higgins

Thomas

(Version 6.5), Cochrane Handboook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Training. Available at: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04

32.

Lucken

Rosky

J. W.

Watkins

(2015). She said, he said, judge said: Analyzing judicial decision making in civil protection order hearings. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 30(12), 2038–2066. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260514552276

33.

*Maxwell

Khan

Yount

K. M.

(2022). Do laws promoting gender equity and freedom from violence benefit the most vulnerable? A multilevel analysis of women’s and adolescent girls’ experiences in 15 low- and-middle-income countries. Health Policy and Planning, 37(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czab127

34.

McNaughton Reyes

H. L.

Graham

L. M.

Chen

M. S.

Baron

Gibbs

Groves

A. K.

Kajula

Bowler

Maman

. (2021). Adolescent dating violence prevention programmes: A global systematic review of evaluation studies. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 5(3), 223–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(20)30276-5

35.

*Meiksin

Crichton

Dodd

Morgan

G. S.

Williams

Willmott

Allen

Tilouche

Sturgess

Morris

Barter

Young

Melendez-Torres

Taylor

Reyes

H. L. M.

Elbourne

Sweeting

Hunt

Ponsford

, . . . Bonell

(2020). A school intervention for 13- to 15-year-olds to prevent dating and relationship violence: The Project Respect pilot cluster RCT. Public Health Research, 8(5), 1–338. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr08050

36.

Niolon

P. H.

(2021). Introduction to a special section on the effects of the dating matters model on secondary outcomes: Results from a comparative effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial. Prevention Science, 22(2), 145–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-020-01187-3

37.

Percy-Smith

(2007). ‘You think you know?...You have no idea’: Youth participation in health policy development. Health Education Research, 22(6), 879–894. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cym032

38.

Peters

M. D. J

Godfrey

McInerney

Munn

Tricco

A. C.

Khalil

(2024). Scoping reviews (2020). In Aromataris

Lockwood

Porritt

Pilla

Jordan

(Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Chapter 10). Joanna Briggs Institute. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global

39.

Piolanti

Foran

H. M.

(2022a). Efficacy of interventions to prevent physical and sexual dating violence among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 176(2), 142–149. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4829

40.

Piolanti

Foran

H. M.

(2022b). Psychological violence in dating relationships among adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prevention programs. Preventive Medicine, 159, 107053. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107053

41.

Piolanti

Waller

Schmid

I. E.

Foran

H. M.

(2023). Long-term adverse outcomes associated with teen dating violence: A systematic review. Pediatrics, 151(6), Article e2022059654. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-059654

42.

*Ravi

K. E.

Black

B. M.

Hoefer

(2022). State teen dating violence school legislation in the United States: A content analysis. Partner Abuse, 13(3), 366–401. https://doi.org/10.1891/PA-2021-0039

43.

Reidy

D. E.

Kearns

M. C.

Houry

Valle

L. A.

Holland

K. M.

Marshall

K. J.

(2016). Dating violence and injury among youth exposed to violence. Pediatrics, 137(2), e20152627. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-2627

44.

Richey

A. E.

McMahon

Adhia

(2024). A multi-state examination of school district policies to address teen dating violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605241284082

45.

Rochford

H. I.

Peek-Asa

Abbott

Estin

Harland

(2022). United States’ teen dating violence policies: Summary of policy element variation. Journal of Public Health Policy, 43(4), 503–514. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-022-00365-7

46.

*Rueda

H. A.

Fawson

P. R.

(2018). From state policy to school practices: Accessibility and implementation of teen dating violence awareness education. Partner Abuse, 9(4), 379–397. https://doi.org/10.1891/1946-6560.9.4.379

47.

Tankard

M. E.

Iyengar

(2018). Economic policies and intimate partner violence prevention: Emerging complexities in the literature. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(21), 3367–3387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518798354

48.

Taquette

S. R.

Monteiro

D. L. M.

(2019). Causes and consequences of adolescent dating violence: A systematic review. Journal of Injury and Violence Research, 11(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.5249/jivr.v11i2.1061

49.

Taylor

B. G.

Stein

N. D.

Mumford

E. A.

Woods

(2013). Shifting Boundaries: An experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prevention Science, 14(1), 64–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-012-0293-2

50.

Teitelbaum

McGowan

A. K.

Richmond

T. S.

Klienman

D. V.

Pronk

Ochiai

Blakey

Brewer

K. H.

(2021). Law and policy as tools in Healthy People 2030. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 27(6), S265–S273. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001358

51.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

, . . . Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

52.

Vagi

K. J.

O’Malley Olsen

Basile

K. C.

Vivolo-Kantor

A. M.

(2015). Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among US high school students: Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(5), 474. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.3577

53.

Wincentak

Connolly

Card

(2017). Teen dating violence: A meta-analytic review of prevalence rates. Psychology of Violence, 7(2), 224–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040194

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.05 MB

0.03 MB