What research evidence is required on Violence Against Women to inform future pandemic preparedness? A scoping review of the research evidence and gaps

Background. Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, United Nations Women estimate that one in two women have experienced one or more forms of violence, a phenomenon described as the ‘Shadow Pandemic’. While there have been systematic reviews of domestic violence and intimate partner violence during Covid-19, this is the first scoping review to provide an overview assessment of the available evidence on all violence against women (VAW) during the whole Covid-19 pandemic, and to identify gaps in this evidence.
Methods: Six databases were searched between 01/01/2020 and 11/02/2023 using terms relating to violence, women, and Covid-19. All quantitative study designs were included, along with qualitative studies with more than 18 participants. We extracted data on thematic focus, types of violence, study design and participant characteristics and narratively synthesized gaps in the evidence.
Findings: 25,080 citations were identified and screened, with 694 reviewed in full-text screening and 419 studies included. A majority focused on prevalence, and experiences of violence, highlighting an evidence gap on services and interventions addressing VAW during Covid-19. Gaps were also identified in relation to qualitative and mixed methods studies, and in relation to specific forms of violence (femicide, forced marriage, and acid attacks, and to a lesser extent coercive control). The evidence was balanced across high- and lower- and middle-income countries, but the largest regional cluster of studies was conducted in North America and Europe combined.
Interpretation: This scoping review provides insights into the types of research conducted and identifies key gaps, including evaluations of how interventions/services adapted during Covid-19 with perhaps durable effects. As this was a systematic search and scoping review of a large body of work (over 400 studies), in-depth analysis of the evidence and the quality of this evidence is not examined, and this should be the focus of further work.