Abstract
Victim engagement is central to domestic abuse investigations, yet attrition is often shaped by victims’ experiences of first response policing. This article examines how response officer conduct influences victim satisfaction and willingness to support police action in domestic abuse cases in Mid and South Wales. Drawing on survivor accounts of police contact, the analysis shows that satisfaction is driven less by formal procedural steps and more by interpersonal practice, particularly listening, empathy and respectful communication, alongside the avoidance of dismissive or judgemental interactions. Where victims experienced validation and practical support, they reported greater willingness to cooperate with investigative and safeguarding action. The findings extend procedural justice and trauma-informed policing debates by evidencing a relational mechanism linking frontline response to victim cooperation in domestic abuse contexts.
Introduction
Victims play a constitutive role in criminal justice processes, not simply as witnesses but as actors whose participation shapes investigative trajectories, evidential possibilities and case outcomes (Dignan, 2005). In domestic abuse cases, this role is particularly acute because cases frequently depend on victim cooperation, ongoing disclosure and the management of risk over time, rather than on a single incident account (Hoyle & Zedner, 2007; Walklate, 2007). Accordingly, the quality of first response policing is not merely a service issue: It is a mechanism that can enable or inhibit engagement, safeguarding and the effective progression of cases.
Recent inspectorate evidence reinforces this point. A joint inspection by HMICFRS, HMCPSI and HMIP found that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Probation Service did not always meet victims’ needs, with an organizational emphasis on compliance with rights under the Victims’ Code that was not consistently matched by the quality of service delivered (HMICFRS, 2023b). This is significant for domestic abuse because victims’ assessments of legitimacy and support are formed at the point of initial contact and can influence whether they continue to engage with the criminal justice process.
Academic literature has long emphasized that victim care and support is multifaceted (Davies et al., 2017; Walklate, 2007). Numerous studies support the view that effective victim support includes emotional reassurance, legal advocacy, safety planning and individualized case management (Hoyle & Zedner, 2007; Robinson & Hudson, 2011; Walklate, 2007). However, the literature also indicates that victims’ evaluations of police response are shaped heavily by interpersonal treatment, including voice, respect, validation and being taken seriously, rather than by outcome alone. This aligns with procedural justice accounts of legitimacy and cooperation and is particularly relevant in domestic abuse contexts where coercive control and fear can constrain disclosure and participation.
This article explores the operational police response to cases of domestic abuse and presents findings from a recent research study that assesses victims’ experiences of initial interactions with police services. Specifically, it examines how perceived first response officer behaviours are associated with overall victim satisfaction and how victims describe the effect of those encounters on their willingness to support police action. Wales was selected for this study due to its unique socio-legal context (Robinson & Davies, 2025), offering a valuable perspective on policing within a relatively underexplored country. Focusing on Wales also allows the study to speak to a policy and service landscape that is distinctive in its violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence strategy, while operating within the same policing framework as England. The article’s contribution is twofold: It provides contemporary empirical evidence on the relationship between response officer interpersonal practice and victim satisfaction, and it advances an explanatory argument about how relational policing operates as a mechanism shaping victim cooperation and case progression.
Policing in England and Wales is widely recognized as a complex and demanding occupation, shaped by high levels of vulnerability-related demand, resource constraints and emotionally charged incidents (Hoggett et al., 2014). Domestic abuse sits at the centre of that demand. Recent national statistics show that police recorded 816,493 domestic abuse-related crimes in England and Wales in the year ending March 2025, although the same release cautions that year-on-year comparisons are affected by changes in police recording practices (Office for National Statistics, 2025a). These figures are not simply descriptive. They underline why domestic abuse continues to test operational capability, organizational culture and public legitimacy, particularly where repeated incidents, coercive control and safeguarding needs require sustained engagement rather than a single point intervention.
While domestic abuse has long challenged police services (Bowling, 1999), there has been significant reform in law, policy and professional guidance. Domestic abuse is now more firmly embedded within strategic priorities, including the wider violence against women and girls agenda. National policing statements have framed the scale of harm as requiring a whole-system approach that extends beyond policing alone and emphasizes improvements in investigative consistency, perpetrator management and victim support (National Police Chiefs’ Council, 2024). Yet reform has not resolved the central problem that has animated scholarship for decades: the uneven translation of policy into consistent, credible frontline practice.
Since the 1980s, researchers have identified persistent shortcomings in policing domestic abuse, including inconsistent decision-making, minimization of victim accounts and the historical tendency to treat domestic abuse as private or less serious (Buzawa & Buzawa, 1990; Edwards, 1989; Hoyle & Zedner, 2007). Early feminist scholarship was instrumental in exposing how institutional cultures could reproduce gendered assumptions, disbelief and inaction, with profound consequences for women’s safety and willingness to seek help (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Radford & Stanko, 1996). Subsequent developments have included specialist units, revised investigative models and risk assessment tools (Davies et al., 2023). However, inspection evidence and academic research continue to identify variability in implementation, with patchy adherence to guidance and uneven quality of service across forces (Brooks-Hay et al., 2020; HMIC, 2014; HMICFRS, 2019; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013). Organizational analyses suggest that these outcomes are shaped by enduring features of police culture and governance, including crime-focused performance pressures and command-and-control orientations that can marginalize victim-centred practice (Loftus, 2009; Rowe, 2020).
More recent legislation, including the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, has strengthened the legal recognition of domestic abuse and contributed to a broader shift in expectations of policing and partner agencies. Nonetheless, victim accounts and contemporary empirical studies suggest that disbelief, procedural indifference and judgementalism remain common features of some encounters, particularly where abuse is non-physical or disclosure is fragmented (Brandon et al., 2021; Home Office, 2015; Lombard & Proctor, 2022; McQueen & Murphy-Oikonen, 2023). The significance of this point is that the problem is not reducible to the presence or absence of policy. It is also about the relational quality of police contact, supervisory practice and the extent to which organizational cultures consistently support trauma-informed, procedurally fair engagement in frontline conditions.
In formal terms, the police role in domestic abuse can be summarized as dual. It includes preventing and reducing harm through safeguarding and safety planning and pursuing justice through evidence gathering, offender-focused action and case-building (Robinson & Stroshine, 2005). Authorized Professional Practice emphasizes the need to identify risk and vulnerability, understand coercive control and respond in ways that prioritize protection while enabling effective investigation (College of Policing, 2024). Despite this policy clarity, the operational response remains uneven, with inspection findings continuing to highlight variability in call-handling, investigative follow-up, supervision and victim communication (HMICFRS, 2019). Research has explored the drivers of inconsistency, including knowledge gaps, resource pressures, victim-blaming attitudes and limited understanding of coercive control and repeat victimization (Bowling, 1999; Buzawa & Buzawa, 1996; Muncie & McLaughlin, 2001; Myhill & Johnson, 2016; Straus, 2010). Some officers continue to treat domestic abuse as a lower priority where visible injury is absent, reinforcing a hierarchy of seriousness that disadvantages survivors experiencing chronic, coercive and controlling patterns of harm (Inzunza, 2022).
Reform efforts have increasingly focused on trauma-informed practice, multi-agency working and specialist capability. Yet victims continue to report negative experiences, including limited empathy, inadequate follow-up and inconsistent communication, indicating a persistent gap between policy intention and lived experience (Brandon et al., 2021; Butterworth & Westmarland, 2015). This gap matters because domestic abuse policing relies heavily on victim engagement over time. Where victims withdraw cooperation or become reluctant to provide evidence, case progression is undermined, and safeguarding opportunities may be lost. Importantly, withdrawal should not be treated as an individualized choice detached from institutional practice. Rather, there is a strong basis to examine how the quality of first response contact shapes trust, willingness to cooperate and perceptions of legitimacy, particularly in the context of coercive control where disclosure is often incremental, and risk is sustained.
National data underline both the scale of recorded demand and the difficulty of tracing cases through the criminal justice system. ONS reporting presents domestic abuse-related measures across different stages, while also warning against simplistic ‘funnel’ interpretations because police recorded crimes, arrests, referrals, prosecutions, and outcomes are collected on different bases and are not directly comparable as a single pipeline (Office for National Statistics, 2025b). The analytic problem, therefore, is not simply attrition as a headline percentage, but understanding the mechanisms that shape engagement and progression at key points. Alongside this, joint inspectorates have found that criminal justice agencies do not consistently meet victims’ needs, with organizational attention to compliance with the Victims’ Code not always matched by the quality of service experienced by victims (HMICFRS, 2023a). Taken together, these sources reinforce the need for focused inquiry into how frontline police practice influences victim trust and cooperation.
This article examines these dynamics by focusing on the relationship between response officer interpersonal behaviours and victim satisfaction in domestic abuse cases in Wales. It is concerned with how victims experience first response policing, which interactional behaviours enhance or undermine trust, and how these experiences shape willingness to support police action. By locating these questions within contemporary debates on procedural justice, legitimacy and trauma-informed policing, the study aims to move beyond descriptive accounts of poor practice and instead identify relational mechanisms that can be operationalized through training, supervision and organizational expectations.
Victim Satisfaction in the Case of Domestic Abuse
Victim satisfaction is widely used as an indicator of policing quality and, more broadly, of criminal justice legitimacy (Kershaw & Sturgis, 2012). In England and Wales, public attitudes to policing have long been monitored through national survey infrastructure, including the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), which captures confidence, trust and perceptions of police effectiveness (Home Office, 1998; Office for National Statistics, 2022). In recent ONS reporting on domestic abuse, the CSEW remains central to estimating prevalence and characterizing victimization, but the ONS is explicit that survey estimates and police-recorded data capture different phenomena and should not be treated as interchangeable measures of performance (Office for National Statistics, 2025a, 2025b). For domestic abuse, this matters because ‘performance’ cannot be inferred from outcomes alone. Victim satisfaction functions as a relational measure that is closely tied to willingness to disclose, to accept safeguarding and to remain engaged when cases become protracted or evidentially complex.
Despite that significance, domestic abuse victim satisfaction remains comparatively underdeveloped as a focused object of analysis, particularly in light of post-2015 shifts in guidance, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and the increased policy emphasis on trauma-informed and victim-centred practice. The available literature suggests that victims’ interpretations of police response shape future reporting and cooperation, but this body of work is thinner and more temporally uneven than research on victim satisfaction in general crime categories (Aihio, 2017; Mulvihill et al., 2017). There is, therefore, a clear rationale for revisiting victim satisfaction in a domestic abuse context with measures that reflect contemporary expectations of first response, safeguarding and communication.
Robinson and Stroshine’s (2005) analysis remains a foundational contribution because it demonstrated that satisfaction among domestic abuse victims is strongly associated with how officers behave in the encounter, including courtesy and respect, concern, listening and taking the situation seriously. Myhill and Bradford’s (2012) work, although not domestic abuse-specific, reinforces the broader policing insight that interpersonal treatment often outweighs outcome in shaping confidence and perceived legitimacy. However, both studies also illustrate why an updated approach is needed. Myhill and Bradford operationalized interpersonal engagement in relatively compressed terms, and their analysis aggregates different crime types that may not share the same relational dynamics and risks as domestic abuse. Robinson and Stroshine focused on a limited set of behaviours and predate major developments in the conceptualization of domestic abuse, particularly the mainstreaming of coercive control and the expansion of safeguarding expectations. In short, the field needs contemporary empirical testing that is domestic abuse-specific and behaviourally granular, and that treats first response as a mechanism shaping cooperation rather than a descriptive service moment.
More recent scholarship provides conceptual tools for doing this. Procedural justice theory argues that people evaluate police legitimacy through dignity, voice, neutrality and trustworthy motives, and that these relational assessments shape cooperation and compliance (Tyler, 2006). In domestic abuse contexts, this relational lens can be broadened through work that challenges narrow, outcome-centred conceptions of justice. Kaleidoscopic justice highlights how survivors may seek recognition, safety and validation alongside or instead of prosecution (McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). Relatedly, justice work perspectives foreground how survivors actively navigate and assemble forms of safety and redress across institutions, rather than simply receiving ‘justice’ as an endpoint (Lombard & Proctor, 2021). These frameworks are particularly apt for domestic abuse, where coercion, fear, shame and practical constraints often structure decision-making and may render a purely criminal justice outcome model insufficient (Brooks-Hay et al., 2020; Stark, 2007; Walklate et al., 2019; Westmarland & Godfrey, 2018).
This study builds on that literature by examining a broader and more context-sensitive set of first response behaviours and their association with domestic abuse victim satisfaction. Rather than limiting analysis to generic ‘service quality’ indicators, it focuses on interactional variables that map onto procedural justice and trauma-informed expectations: perceived approachability, active listening, empathy and support, efforts to build rapport, the provision of tangible assistance and, critically, perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism. These domains align with professional guidance that emphasizes understanding risk and vulnerability, responding appropriately to coercive control and communicating in ways that support safeguarding and engagement (College of Policing, 2024). They also speak to inspection concerns that criminal justice agencies do not always meet victims’ needs in ways that are experienced as meaningful, even where formal compliance is present (HMICFRS, 2023a).
The article narrows its analytical focus deliberately to the initial police encounter. Victim satisfaction is multi-determined and may be shaped by prior trauma, social support, risk severity and demographic and contextual factors. However, the first response phase is both consequential and amenable to intervention: It is the point at which officers establish whether a victim feels heard, believed and supported, and it is the point at which decisions about safeguarding, evidence capture and referral pathways are initiated. The study, therefore, examines whether officer behaviour at first contact is associated with victims’ willingness to support police action and engage with the wider criminal justice process. The contribution is not simply descriptive. It is an explanatory claim that, in domestic abuse policing, relational practice operates as a mechanism linking frontline response to cooperation, trust and the practical prospects of case progression.
Police Behaviours
Victim satisfaction is commonly treated as an indicator of police legitimacy and public confidence, but its significance is heightened in domestic abuse contexts because trust, safety and engagement are often shaped by fear, trauma and ongoing risk. Early work on domestic abuse policing tended to privilege procedural actions, particularly arrest, as the principal driver of satisfaction and successful case outcomes (Brandl & Horvath, 1991; Chandek & Porter, 1999). Subsequent research complicated that view by showing that victims may report relatively high satisfaction even where no arrest is made, suggesting that interpersonal engagement and perceived seriousness can outweigh the presence of immediate legal action (Yegidis & Renzy, 1994). This shift is consistent with wider work on procedural and interactional justice, which argues that people evaluate authority through the quality of treatment, including whether they are listened to, treated with dignity and regarded as credible, and that these relational assessments shape perceptions of fairness and willingness to cooperate (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 2006). In domestic abuse cases, these dynamics are especially salient because victims commonly seek recognition, validation and safety, alongside or instead of punitive outcomes (Brooks-Hay et al., 2020; Daly, 2011; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013).
Domestic abuse research has repeatedly demonstrated that police demeanour, communication and emotional competence are central predictors of satisfaction. Robinson and Stroshine’s (2005) domestic abuse-specific analysis remains influential because it identified five behaviours associated with higher satisfaction: courtesy and respect, understanding, concern, active listening and taking the situation seriously. Relatedly, Myhill and Bradford (2012) found that interpersonal behaviours were more predictive of confidence than procedural outputs across crime types, reinforcing the claim that legitimacy is built in the encounter rather than solely through outcomes. However, there are two reasons why these foundations require updating. First, the conceptual and policy context has moved significantly, particularly in relation to coercive control, safeguarding expectations and victim-centred practice. Second, much of the earlier empirical work either aggregates domestic abuse with other offences or relies on narrow measures of interpersonal engagement, which risks under-specifying the interactional dynamics that are distinctive to domestic abuse (Myhill & Bradford, 2012).
More recent scholarship supports a broader, more textured account of what victims interpret as ‘good’ policing. Studies emphasize that victim experience is shaped by the relational detail of contact, including tone, attentiveness, non-verbal cues, clarity of explanation and follow-through after initial contact, not simply whether formal actions were taken (Mulvihill et al., 2017). This is consistent with contemporary justice frameworks that move beyond outcome-based models to recognize voice, dignity and validation as core justice goods. Procedural justice provides the theoretical link between respectful treatment and cooperation (Tyler, 2006), while kaleidoscopic justice and justice work perspectives emphasize that survivors often seek multiple, sometimes non-criminal, forms of redress and safety, making interactional treatment central to whether police involvement is experienced as helpful or harmful (Lombard & Proctor, 2021; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). In practice, this means that officer behaviour is not peripheral to domestic abuse policing; it is a mechanism through which willingness to disclose, to accept safeguarding and to support action can be enabled or undermined.
There is also a growing policy and inspection-based rationale for focusing on interpersonal behaviour. Authorized Professional Practice on domestic abuse emphasizes understanding risk and vulnerability, communicating appropriately with victims and responding in ways that support safeguarding and engagement (College of Policing, 2023). Inspection and scrutiny repeatedly point to variability in victim experience, including inconsistencies in how effectively agencies meet victims’ needs and how service quality is experienced even where formal compliance is present (HMICFRS, 2023a). Alongside this, recent work focused on victim–survivor disengagement foregrounds the pre-charge stage as critical and highlights the centrality of police practice to victim decisions about continuing to support action, including in contexts where cases are closed because the victim does not support a prosecution (Domestic Abuse Commissioner, 2025). Taken together, these sources reinforce the argument that interpersonal policing practices are not ‘soft’ additions to domestic abuse work; they are operationally consequential.
This study therefore extends prior work by testing a broader and more context-specific set of police behaviours than has typically been operationalized in domestic abuse satisfaction research. In addition to the foundational variables identified by Robinson and Stroshine (2005), it examines approachability, active listening, empathy and support, rapport-building, the provision of tangible assistance and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism. These variables are designed to capture both the enabling features of relational practice and the interactional harms that can produce disengagement, including where victims feel blamed, minimized or treated as not credible. This is particularly important in domestic abuse cases because victims’ circumstances may involve ongoing contact with the perpetrator, financial or housing dependence, child-related constraints and an entrenched pattern of coercive control that shapes disclosure and willingness to proceed (Stark, 2007; Walklate et al., 2019). In such circumstances, procedural action without relational competence may be experienced as unsafe, futile or even risk escalating.
The central claim developed in this section is that victim satisfaction in domestic abuse is not simply a performance metric but a relational indicator of legitimacy, safety and practical willingness to cooperate. When victims feel heard and treated with dignity, they are more likely to engage, provide evidence and seek help again (Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Conversely, perceived judgement, indifference or poor communication erodes trust, weakens cooperation and may contribute to withdrawal and repeat harm. The analysis that follows uses victim accounts from mid and southern Wales to identify which officer behaviours most consistently strengthen or undermine satisfaction, and to consider the implications for a more procedurally fair, trauma-aware and relationally competent model of domestic abuse policing.
The Study
Aims and Analytic Focus
This article investigates how domestic abuse victims’ perceptions of first response officer behaviour are associated with overall satisfaction with police contact. Its analytic focus is deliberately limited to the behavioural variables measured consistently in the survey and reported in the correlation analysis: perceived approachability, active listening, perceived support or sympathy and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism. The study, therefore, has two objectives: first, to assess the relationship between these perceived officer behaviours and overall satisfaction; and second, to identify which behavioural dimensions show the strongest association with satisfaction and how victims explain those experiences in their open-text responses. The qualitative material is used to interpret how police encounters may shape willingness to support police action, but the quantitative hypothesis testing is confined to associations with satisfaction.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
The analysis focuses on two primary questions:
How are measured first response officer behaviours associated with overall domestic abuse victim satisfaction? Which of the measured behavioural dimensions, namely approachability, active listening, perceived support or sympathy and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism, exhibits the strongest association with satisfaction?
The study outlines three hypotheses based on the measured behavioural variables and existing literature on police interpersonal practice and victim satisfaction:
H1: Perceived first response officer behaviour is significantly associated with overall domestic abuse victim satisfaction. H2: Positive relational behaviours, specifically perceived approachability, active listening and support or sympathy, are positively associated with overall satisfaction. H3: Perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism is negatively associated with overall satisfaction.
This study employs a deductive mixed-methods survey design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2010) to examine associations between perceived first response officer behaviour and victim satisfaction in domestic abuse cases across Wales. Although the original plan intended to include all four Welsh forces, recruitment challenges in the North Wales Police area limited the sample to South Wales Police, Gwent Police and Dyfed-Powys Police. While this geographic constraint and modest sample size may affect generalisability, the findings offer useful insight into how victims interpret police practice, particularly in the context of first response behaviour (Braun & Clarke, 2013; Mason, 2010).
Sampling, Recruitment and Participants
A total of 100 surveys were distributed through domestic abuse support organizations, achieving a completion rate of 38% (38 surveys). This response rate aligns with common benchmarks for sensitive topics, particularly when recruitment is facilitated through support services (Ellard-Gray et al., 2015; Tourangeau et al., 2000). Participants were eligible if they were aged 18 or over, had experienced domestic abuse and had recent contact with the police regarding that abuse. Recruitment was conducted through gatekeepers in domestic abuse charities, which is an ethical approach that prioritizes participant safety and anonymity (Liamputtong, 2007; Reeves, 2010).
Ethics and Safeguarding
Ethical approval was granted by the University of South Wales High Risk Ethics Committee. Research involving survivors of domestic abuse necessitates rigorous ethical safeguards, including informed consent, confidentiality and minimization of distress. The study adhered to established guidelines by providing clear participant information, ensuring voluntary participation and offering anonymized completion, alongside signposting to support services (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007; World Health Organization, 2001).
Survey Instrument and Measures
The survey, administered via Microsoft Forms, comprised 89 questions organized into seven sections: demographic information, experience of abuse, police contact, perceived officer behaviour, satisfaction, follow-up actions and participant feedback. The instrument was developed from prior research on police– victim interaction, particularly in the domestic abuse context (Myhill & Bradford, 2012; Robinson & Stroshine, 2005), and was refined through a pilot study to enhance clarity and accessibility. The present analysis uses one outcome variable, overall satisfaction with the police response, and four behavioural explanatory variables: perceived approachability, active listening, perceived support or sympathy and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism. These variables were selected because they map directly onto the research aims and hypotheses, were measured consistently across the respondent group and represent the main supportive and harmful interactional dimensions identified in the literature on domestic abuse policing and procedural justice. Approachability, active listening and support or sympathy capture positive relational conduct, while dismissiveness or judgmentalism capture negative interactional treatment that may undermine legitimacy, trust and engagement. Other survey items, including politeness, courtesy, rapport-building, referrals and broader follow-up experiences, are used descriptively to contextualize victim experience but are not treated as core hypothesis-testing variables unless included in the correlation matrix. Open-text questions allowed for richer qualitative interpretation of how victims made sense of these police interactions and how such experiences shaped their willingness to support police action.
Analytical Strategy
Quantitative analysis employed SPSS to explore descriptive patterns and associations between behavioural indicators and overall satisfaction. Descriptive statistics summarized patterns in reported officer behaviours and satisfaction, while Pearson’s correlation coefficients assessed bivariate relationships, with statistical significance determined at p < .05 (Field, 2018). Linear regression identified the extent to which perceived officer behaviours explained variance in satisfaction, highlighting the behavioural factors with the strongest predictive value. For categorical variables, χ2 tests examined associations.
Qualitative responses underwent reflexive thematic analysis per Braun and Clarke’s (2006) framework, with initial coding followed by iterative refinement into themes that captured victims’ interpretations of officer empathy, dismissiveness, communication and perceived support. Representative quotations illuminate mechanisms linking officer behaviour to satisfaction and willingness to support police action.
By integrating statistical analysis with thematic interpretation, this study provides an evidence-based account of how first response police behaviours influence domestic abuse victim satisfaction. While exploratory, the mixed-methods design enhances interpretive credibility and lays the groundwork for larger-scale research.
Results
Demographic Variables and Study Scope
Demographic variables were collected to contextualize the sample and to support the interpretation of the findings. The dataset includes age, gender and ethnicity. The absence of additional variables, such as disability, socioeconomic status, education and sexuality, limits the extent to which the analysis can examine intersectional experiences. Demographic information is therefore presented descriptively and is not treated as explanatory of satisfaction outcomes.
Ethnicity
The sample was predominantly White British. Most participants (n = 34; 89.5%) selected ‘English, Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish or British’, with the remaining four participants each selecting a different category (Irish; White Latin American; White and Black Caribbean; White Greek) (Table 1). This is broadly consistent with the ethnic composition of Wales, where 90.6% of the population identified as ‘White: Welsh, English, Scottish, Northern Irish or British’ in Census 2021 (Welsh Government, 2020). Given the small sample (n = 38), these data should be understood as a descriptive snapshot rather than a basis for comparative inference.
Ethnicity of the Respondents. (Please select your self-defined ethnicity (click which apply to you—you can select more than one)).
Police Force Area
Participants were distributed across three force areas (Table 2): South Wales Police (n = 24; 60.5%), Dyfed-Powys Police (n = 8; 21.1%) and Gwent Police (n = 6; 15.8%). This distribution is plausible given population density and the geographic scope of the study, but the sample is not weighted and should not be treated as representative of force-area experiences. Force-area breakdowns are therefore interpreted cautiously, particularly where cell sizes are small.
Which Police Force Area Do You Reside Within?
Gender Distribution
The sample was overwhelmingly female (n = 37; 97.4%), with one male respondent (n = 1; 2.6%) (Table 3). This aligns with a common pattern in domestic abuse research where women are more likely to access specialist support services and to participate in studies, while men may face distinct barriers to disclosure and help-seeking (Douglas & Hines, 2011; Norman, 2009). It is also consistent with national survey evidence indicating a higher prevalence among women than men (Office for National Statistics, 2025a). The findings should therefore be read primarily as reflecting women’s experiences.
Gender of the Respondents: Gender Identity.
Victimization Context
Almost all participants identified the perpetrator as an ex-partner (n = 37; 97.4%), with one participant identifying a family member (n = 1; 2.6%) (Table 4). No participants identified a current partner. This pattern suggests that post-separation abuse is a dominant context within this sample, and it is relevant to interpretation because post-separation dynamics can shape risk, reporting decisions and expectations of police safeguarding.
Perpetrator of the Abuse: Is the Perpetrator of the Abuse Your.
Table 5 illustrates that many participants experienced prolonged victimization before contacting the police. Over half of respondents (57.9%, n = 22) lived with abuse for five years or more prior to reporting, including 26.3% (n = 10) who reported abuse lasting over 10 years, and 31.6% (n = 12) who reported abuse lasting 5–10 years. This pattern is consistent with research indicating that delayed disclosure is common in domestic abuse contexts and shaped by psychological, social and institutional barriers, including fear of disbelief, concerns about blame and anxiety about the consequences of reporting (Hohl & Stanko, 2015; Lombard & Proctor, 2022; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013). Coercive control may further constrain reporting by eroding autonomy and increasing perceived risks associated with disclosure (Stark, 2007).
Period of Abuses Before Reporting: How Long Have You Been a Victim of This Abuse, Before You Reported It to the Police?
While this study does not measure specific reasons for delay, the distribution in Table 5 is crucial for interpreting subsequent findings. It indicates that police contact often occurs after extended periods of victimization, during which trust may already be fragile, and victims’ expectations of being treated with dignity may be shaped by prior experiences. Thus, the first police encounter is not merely an administrative gateway into the justice system; it is a potentially decisive moment in forming perceptions of legitimacy and safety. This underscores the importance of examining how officer behaviour is experienced during the first response phase and how it relates to satisfaction and engagement (Brooks-Hay et al., 2020; Daly, 2011; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). Inspection evidence continues to highlight inconsistency in domestic abuse responses, repeatedly calling for more victim-focused and trauma-informed practices (HMICFRS, 2019).
Police Officer Behaviour
Victim satisfaction with police services is a complex and multidimensional construct influenced by both procedural and interpersonal factors. Procedural elements may include response time, investigative action and perceived case progress, while interpersonal elements encompass officer demeanour, empathy, communication clarity and the extent to which victims feel listened to and taken seriously (Aihio, 2017; Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Tyler, 2006). In domestic abuse cases, the interpersonal dimension is particularly consequential, as victims often approach police with heightened fear, uncertainty and past experiences that shape their willingness to disclose and cooperate.
Prior research consistently finds that first response officer behaviour significantly impacts victim satisfaction. Robinson and Stroshine (2005) identified five behaviours associated with higher satisfaction: courtesy and respect, understanding, concern, active listening and taking the situation seriously. Broader research on police–public encounters indicates that relational treatment often predicts satisfaction and cooperation more strongly than formal procedural outputs, reinforcing the argument that legitimacy derives from the encounter itself (Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
This study builds on that foundation by retesting key relational behaviours identified in the domestic abuse literature while incorporating additional interpersonal dimensions reflecting contemporary expectations of victim-centred and trauma-informed practice. For clarity, the analysis distinguishes between descriptive behavioural indicators and the variables used in hypothesis testing. Descriptive findings on active listening, approachability, politeness or courtesy, support, rapport-building and referrals contextualize respondents’ experiences. The hypothesis testing focuses on the variables included in the correlation analysis: approachability, active listening, perceived support or sympathy and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism, with overall satisfaction as the outcome variable. This distinction ensures that the study’s aims, hypotheses, variables and results are aligned.
Police Officer Behaviour: Active Listening
Active listening is widely regarded as a core feature of victim-centred and trauma-informed policing, involving attentive engagement with a victim’s account, respectful and validating responses and enabling disclosure in emotionally challenging circumstances (College of Policing, 2024; Goodman-Delahunty & Corbo Crehan, 2016). In this sample, a slight majority of respondents (55.3%, n = 21) reported that officers actively listened, while 44.7% (n = 17) did not (Table 6). The substantial proportion of respondents who did not feel listened to aligns with concerns raised in inspections and research regarding variability in communication and victim experience in domestic abuse policing (HMICFRS, 2019). Previous studies suggest that perceived listening correlates closely with satisfaction and willingness to remain engaged, even when case outcomes are uncertain (Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Robinson & Stroshine, 2005). The correlation analysis reported later supports this association within the current sample.
Police Officers Actively Listened: Did You Feel That the Police Officer(s) Were Actively Listening to What You Were Saying?
Approachability is an interactional feature through which victims often assess whether officers are safe to speak to and whether disclosure will be met with seriousness rather than judgement. In this study, 65.8% of respondents (n = 25) reported that officers were approachable, while 34.2% (n = 13) did not (Table 7). This suggests that while most victims experienced officers as reasonably accessible and calm, a sizeable minority did not, which matters given evidence that approachability can shape the quality of disclosure and subsequent cooperation (Goodman-Delahunty & Corbo Crehan, 2016).
Approachability of Police Officers: Were the Police Officers Approachable?
Police Officer Behaviour: Approachability
Politeness and courtesy are basic professional expectations, but they also function as relational gateways to building rapport and enabling disclosure in domestic abuse contexts (Robinson & Stroshine, 2005). Respondents’ assessments were mixed: 44.7% (n = 17) reported that officers were polite and courteous, 42.1% (n = 16) selected ‘sometimes/somewhat’ and 13.2% (n = 5) selected ‘no’ (Table 8). The ‘sometimes’ category is analytically useful because it suggests inconsistency within encounters or across officers, which can undermine perceptions of fairness and legitimacy even where procedural steps are completed (Tyler, 2006).
Police Officer Behaviour: Polite and Courteous—Were the Police Polite and Courteous to You When Dealing with the Incident?
Police Officer Behaviour: Avoid Being Dismissive or Judgemental
The purpose of this discussion was to analyse the data pertaining to police officer behaviour, specifically focusing on whether respondents perceived the police officers to be dismissive or judgemental towards them.
Perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism was common in this sample. Most respondents (57.9%, n = 22) reported that officers appeared dismissive or judgemental, while 42.1% (n = 16) did not (Table 9). This is a critical result because negative interactional experiences can undermine trust and can contribute to disengagement, particularly where victims already anticipate disbelief or blame (Myhill & Johnson, 2016; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013). Such behaviour may be especially consequential in cases dominated by coercive control or emotional abuse, where victims may be concerned that their experiences will not be recognized as ‘serious’ in the absence of visible injury (Stark, 2007).
Did the Police Officer(s) Appear Dismissive or Judgemental Towards You?
Police Officer Behaviour: Offers of Support
Over half of participants did not feel supported by police (57.9%, n = 22), while 42.1% (n = 16) reported that they did feel supported (Table 10). Although ‘support’ can encompass practical guidance, safeguarding action, explanation and signposting, the measure here captures the overall perception of being supported as a victim. Existing evidence indicates that victims may interpret limited communication, poor follow-up or a lack of empathy as abandonment, even where formal procedural actions occur (Butterworth & Westmarland, 2015; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013). This is important given the study’s broader focus on how interpersonal practice shapes satisfaction and willingness to support police action.
As a Victim, Did You Feel That the Police Supported You?
The force-area breakdown suggests uneven experiences (Table 11). In the South Wales Police area, most respondents reported not feeling supported (70.8%, 17 of 24). In Dyfed-Powys and Gwent, most respondents reported feeling supported (62.5%, 5 of 8; and 66.7%, 4 of 6, respectively). These differences are descriptive and must be interpreted cautiously, given small cell sizes and the study’s design, but they do reinforce the broader point that victims’ experiences are not consistent across the sample.
As a Victim, Did You Feel That the Police Were Supportive and Empathetic? Area Breakdown.
Qualitative responses illuminate how victims interpreted ‘support’ in practice. Negative accounts centred on perceived neglect, poor communication and feeling disbelieved, for example:
My daughter was 2 weeks old, and she was breastfed. They forced her to go on formula, they didn’t listen to me. (Respondent 3) They never acted like I was a victim, never checked up on me or listened to me. (Respondent 4) I provided a statement to the police. I never heard anything until I was due to go to court. (Respondent 24)
In contrast, positive accounts highlighted recognition of non-physical abuse, proactive safeguarding and referral:
Although no physical abuse, he could see I was clearly psychologically and emotionally abused … he went and put a referral in. (Respondent 22) They listened carefully … gave me tools to keep myself safe. (Respondent 38) Referred to victim support and women’s aid. (Respondent 14)
Rapport-building
Rapport-building involves intentional relational work to reduce fear, encourage disclosure and support safety planning. In this sample, 55.3% of respondents (n = 21) reported that officers did not try to build rapport, while 44.7% (n = 17) reported that they did (Table 12). This again suggests variability in first response practice. Existing research indicates that victims who experience officers as patient, validating and attentive tend to report greater satisfaction and willingness to cooperate (Goodman-Delahunty & Corbo Crehan, 2016). The APP guidance also emphasizes rapport as relevant to risk assessment and safety planning (College of Policing, 2024).
Did the Officer(s) Try to Build a Rapport with You? (For example, Did They Try to Develop a Relationship or Bond with You, to Make You Feel Comfortable?)
Hypothesis Testing and Associations with Satisfaction
The hypotheses were tested using Pearson correlation analysis (Table 13). The results indicate statistically significant associations between overall satisfaction and each behavioural variable included in the correlation table (p < .01). Approachability was moderately positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.537, p = .001). Active listening was strongly positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.703, p < .001), and perceived support and sympathy were also strongly positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.782, p < .001). The strongest association in the dataset was a strong negative correlation between satisfaction and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism (r = −0.841, p < .001).
Satisfaction Correlation Analysis.
Substantively, these results support the proposition that interpersonal behaviours are closely tied to victim satisfaction in domestic abuse policing, consistent with prior evidence that relational treatment can outweigh procedural outcomes in shaping victim evaluations (Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Robinson & Stroshine, 2005). The strength of the negative correlation for dismissiveness suggests that harmful interactional cues may be particularly damaging in domestic abuse contexts and may overshadow other positive elements of the encounter. This aligns with work on secondary victimization and with procedural justice accounts that emphasize dignity, voice and respectful treatment as central to legitimacy (Tyler, 2006; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013).
Police Officer Behaviour: Rapport-building
Building trust and rapport with victims is widely recognized as a critical component of effective policing, particularly in the context of domestic abuse. Research consistently demonstrates that when officers establish rapport, victims are more likely to feel safe, respected and willing to engage with the criminal justice system (Goodman-Delahunty & Corbo Crehan, 2016; Wolfe et al., 2016). Rapport-building involves more than politeness or professionalism; it requires active efforts to connect with victims on a human level through empathetic communication, non-judgemental support and an awareness of trauma.
Table 12 presents findings on whether respondents perceived that police officers made efforts to build rapport during their interactions. The results show that a slight majority of respondents (55.3%, n = 21) reported that officers did not make active efforts to build rapport, while 44.7% (n = 17) indicated that officers did make such efforts.
These findings suggest an area of concern, as more than half of the participants did not perceive officers as attempting to foster a meaningful connection or sense of trust. Rapport-building is a key component of effective domestic abuse response. It entails developing a supportive, respectful and emotionally safe environment in which victims feel comfortable disclosing abuse and engaging with the criminal justice process (College of Policing, 2024; Johnson, 2007; Oxburgh & Ost, 2011).
The College of Policing’s Authorised Professional Practice guidelines explicitly emphasize the importance of rapport in domestic abuse cases, stating:
Establishing a good rapport means the victim will be more likely to cooperate with the risk assessment and safety planning process, thereby improving the chances of preventing or reducing future incidents. (College of Policing, 2024, p. 9)
These findings are further supported by recent academic literature. For example, Kunst et al. (2013) and Inzunza (2022) argue that victims who perceive officers as empathetic, supportive and attentive are more likely to report higher levels of satisfaction and engagement with the criminal justice process. Rapport-building techniques—such as active listening, demonstrating empathy, validating victims’ experiences and showing patience—have all been associated with improved victim cooperation and trust (Brandon et al., 2021; Goodman-Delahunty & Corbo Crehan, 2016).
The discrepancy in experiences reported by participants in this study reflects broader concerns about inconsistency in frontline practice. While some officers are clearly adopting supportive behaviours that foster rapport, others may not be doing so consistently, whether due to time constraints, insufficient training or aspects of organizational culture.
These results highlight the need for further exploration of how relational police behaviours influence victim satisfaction. Specifically, they point to a need for training that enhances officers’ emotional intelligence, communication skills and trauma-informed practice. The variability observed in this study also highlights the importance of future research that formally tests hypotheses regarding the causal relationship between rapport-building and satisfaction outcomes.
Testing Hypotheses
Hypothesis Testing and Associations with Satisfaction
The hypotheses were examined using Pearson correlation analysis (Table 13). Overall satisfaction was significantly associated with each of the measured behavioural variables (p < .01). Perceived approachability was moderately positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.537, p = .001). Perceived active listening was strongly positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.703, p < .001), and perceived support or sympathy was also strongly positively correlated with satisfaction (r = 0.782, p < .001). Perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism showed the strongest association in the dataset and was strongly negatively correlated with satisfaction (r = −0.841, p < .001). H1 is therefore supported, as perceived first response officer behaviour was significantly associated with satisfaction. H2 is supported, as the positive relational behaviours were positively associated with satisfaction. H3 is also supported, as dismissiveness or judgmentalism was negatively associated with satisfaction.
Police Officer Behaviour: Rapport-building
Rapport-building was examined as a further relational dimension of first response contact. As shown in Table 12, 55.3% of respondents (n = 21) reported that officers did not try to build rapport, while 44.7% (n = 17) reported that they did. This pattern suggests that victims’ experiences of relational engagement were mixed, with a slight majority not perceiving active efforts to build trust or comfort during the encounter. Given the role of rapport in enabling disclosure and supporting safeguarding conversations, this variability is likely to be consequential for how victims experience police contact, particularly in domestic abuse contexts where fear of being disbelieved or judged is common (College of Policing, 2024; Oxburgh & Ost, 2011).
Table 13 presents the correlation analysis between overall satisfaction and the four behavioural variables selected for hypothesis testing: perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism, approachability, active listening and perceived support or sympathy.
This study set out to examine how domestic abuse victims’ perceptions of first response officer behaviour are associated with overall satisfaction with police contact. The results show a clear and consistent pattern: relational aspects of the encounter matter. Victims’ evaluations of police were strongly associated with whether officers were perceived as approachable, listened actively and offered support, and even more strongly associated with whether officers were perceived as dismissive or judgemental. Taken together, these findings reinforce the argument that in domestic abuse policing, the quality of interpersonal treatment is not peripheral to legitimacy and engagement, but central to how victims experience justice.
These results sit squarely within the procedural justice tradition, which emphasizes that people evaluate legal authorities not only by what they do, but by how they do it, particularly in terms of dignity, respect, voice and fairness (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Tyler, 2006). In domestic abuse contexts, this interactional dimension is likely to be especially salient. Victims often approach police contact after prolonged periods of abuse, with heightened fear, uncertainty and concerns about being believed or blamed. In such circumstances, active listening, empathy and approachability function not merely as ‘good practice’ but as signals of recognition and moral worth. The present findings are consistent with earlier work showing that victims frequently prioritize relational treatment over procedural outcomes when judging police encounters (Myhill & Bradford, 2012; Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Robinson & Stroshine, 2005).
A particularly important contribution of this study is the strength of the association between dissatisfaction and perceived dismissiveness or judgementalism. While much of the literature focuses on the benefits of positive behaviours such as empathy and listening, these results suggest that harmful interactional cues may carry even greater weight in shaping victims’ overall evaluations. This aligns with work on secondary victimization, which shows that feeling disbelieved, minimized or blamed by criminal justice professionals can compound the original harm and undermine trust in institutions (Brooks-Hay et al., 2020; Westmarland & Kelly, 2013). In this sense, the absence of negative treatment may be as important as the presence of positive treatment. Even where officers are procedurally competent, perceptions of dismissiveness appear capable of overshadowing other elements of the encounter.
The findings also speak to emerging debates about trauma-informed and victim-centred policing. Guidance in this area increasingly stresses the need for emotional intelligence, non-judgemental engagement and sensitivity to the dynamics of coercive control (College of Policing, 2024). The mixed patterns observed in perceptions of listening, support and rapport-building suggest that such principles are not yet embedded consistently in frontline practice. This is not simply a matter of individual skill, but of organizational culture, supervision and the priorities that shape everyday policing. Research on police culture has long highlighted the persistence of crime-focused, task-oriented models that can marginalize relational work, particularly in cases that do not fit traditional images of ‘serious’ crime (Loftus, 2009; Rowe, 2020). The present findings suggest that in domestic abuse policing, this tension has direct consequences for how victims experience legitimacy and care.
It is important to be cautious about what these data can and cannot show. The analysis identifies associations rather than causal effects, and the sample is modest and geographically limited. The study does not measure downstream outcomes such as charge decisions or case progression, and therefore cannot claim that particular behaviours lead to specific criminal justice results. What it does show, however, is that victims’ subjective evaluations of police contact are closely tied to the relational quality of the encounter, and that negative interactional cues are especially corrosive. Given the well-established links between perceived legitimacy, cooperation and future help-seeking (Myhill & Quinton, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), these findings provide a plausible mechanism through which first response practice may shape longer-term engagement, even if that pathway cannot be tested directly here.
From a policy and practice perspective, the implications are relatively clear. Efforts to improve domestic abuse policing should not focus solely on procedural compliance, risk tools or investigative throughput, important as these are. They must also address the everyday interactional work of policing: How officers listen, how they communicate belief or scepticism, and how they convey respect or judgement. Training that concentrates only on adding ‘positive’ skills may be insufficient if it does not also tackle behaviours and attitudes that victims experience as dismissive or blaming. In other words, improving practice may require both building relational competence and actively reducing harmful interactional cues.
More broadly, the findings contribute to a growing body of work that argues for evaluating criminal justice responses to domestic abuse not only in terms of legal outcomes but also in terms of victims’ experiences of dignity, voice and recognition (Daly, 2011; McGlynn & Westmarland, 2019). Satisfaction, in this sense, is not a soft or secondary measure. It is an indicator of whether policing is experienced as legitimate and humane by those who are often most vulnerable. By demonstrating the centrality of interpersonal treatment, and especially the damaging impact of dismissiveness, this study reinforces the case for a more relational, trauma-aware model of first response policing in domestic abuse cases.
Future research should build on these findings in three ways. First, larger and more diverse samples would allow for more robust testing of these associations and exploration of potential differences by gender, ethnicity or type of abuse. Second, longitudinal designs could examine whether early experiences of police contact shape subsequent engagement and case trajectories. Third, qualitative work focused specifically on how victims interpret and make sense of police demeanour would deepen understanding of the mechanisms suggested here. Together, such work would help move the field beyond the question of whether police act, towards a more nuanced understanding of how police act, and why that distinction matters so profoundly for victims of domestic abuse.
Conclusion
This study highlights persistent systemic failings in the police response to domestic abuse and the critical need for enhanced training, empathetic engagement and improved understanding of abuse dynamics. The analysis of both quantitative data and qualitative victim accounts reveals a recurring theme across all three police force areas: Many officers continue to lack the interpersonal skills and victim-centred approaches required to effectively support survivors.
While some respondents acknowledged positive experiences with police, including instances of empathy and appropriate referrals, these were outweighed by more frequent reports of inconsistent, dismissive or judgemental treatment. These findings suggest that such deficiencies are not isolated incidents but may reflect broader organizational and cultural challenges within policing. To address this, there is an urgent need for ongoing, specialist training in victim-centred practice, grounded in the lived realities of domestic abuse and designed to strengthen officers’ emotional intelligence and communication skills.
This research makes a meaningful contribution to the growing literature on victim satisfaction in domestic abuse cases, with a particular focus on the Welsh context. One of the study’s key contributions is the identification of specific police behaviours that significantly influence victim satisfaction. Behaviours such as approachability, active listening and expressions of support or sympathy emerged as critical determinants of whether victims felt safe, respected and able to engage with the criminal justice process. These findings align with earlier work (e.g., Myhill & Bradford, 2012; Robinson & Stroshine, 2005) and extend it by testing newly examined behavioural variables, some of which had not previously been explored in UK-based research. Crucially, this study also found a strong negative correlation between dismissive or judgemental police behaviour and victim satisfaction (r = –0.841), confirming that such behaviours are deeply damaging to victims’ experiences. By contrast, the correlation values for supportive and sympathetic behaviour (r = 0.782), active listening (r = 0.703) and approachability (r = 0.537) indicate that positive officer conduct exerts a substantial and statistically significant influence on satisfaction (p = .000 < .05 for all variables).
The findings complicate more optimistic portrayals of police progress reported by bodies such as HMICFRS. While structural improvements may have occurred, this study suggests that some victims continue to encounter inconsistency, limited empathy and insufficient meaningful engagement from frontline officers. If victim satisfaction is to be improved, this will require not only policy reform but also embedded cultural change and strengthened mechanisms for training, monitoring and accountability.
The practical implications of this study are significant. Police services must prioritize the development of officer behaviours shown to increase victim satisfaction. These include non-judgemental listening, approachability, emotional support and proactive referrals. Embedding these behaviours into policy, training and performance evaluation frameworks could support a more compassionate and effective response. Victim-centred policing should not be treated as optional; it is fundamental to justice outcomes, public trust and survivor wellbeing. Moreover, the study reinforces the need to centre victim perspectives in the design and implementation of domestic abuse policy and practice. Police services should collaborate with domestic abuse organizations, support providers and survivors to co-produce guidance that is shaped by lived experience, particularly regarding the frontline behaviours that victims value most.
Although this research offers valuable insights, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. The study was geographically confined to the mid and southern regions of Wales, meaning that findings may not be fully generalizable to other contexts. The sample size was limited, and the views of police officers, policymakers and service providers were not included. Future research should address these gaps, including through larger-scale, multi-agency studies that explore both victim and practitioner perspectives. Additionally, further work is needed to examine how these findings apply across diverse survivor groups, including male victims, LGBTQ+ individuals and those from Black and minoritized communities.
In conclusion, this study provides a strong empirical foundation for rethinking how domestic abuse victims are supported by police in Wales and beyond. It makes a compelling case for embedding emotional intelligence, respect and empathy at the heart of police response—not only as ethical imperatives but as evidence-based drivers of victim satisfaction, trust and justice.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by the Faculty of Life Sciences and Education, University of South Wales.