Mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used across health programming including intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention to optimize screening, educational outreach, and linkages to care via telehealth. We systematically evaluated current web-based and mHealth interventions, which include web- or mobile-based delivery methods for primary, secondary, and tertiary IPV victimization prevention. We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Open Grey, and Google Scholar for empirical studies published 1998–2019. Studies were included if they considered empirical data, participants in adult romantic relationships, IPV as a primary or secondary outcome, and an mHealth component. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to record critical ratings of quality among studies selected for inclusion. We assessed variation in targeted populations, types of IPV addressed, and mHealth approaches used. Of 133 studies identified for full-text review, 31 were included. Computer-based screening with or without integrated education was the most common mHealth approach ( n = 8, 26%), followed by safety decision aids ( n = 7, 23%). Feasibility and acceptability were found to be generally high where assessed (23% of studies, n = 7). There was limited evidence around whether mHealth interventions better addressed population needs compared to conventional interventions. mHealth tools for IPV prevention are especially acceptable in health-care settings, on mobile phone platforms, or when connecting victims to health care. Despite enthusiasm in pilot projects, evidence for efficacy compared to conventional IPV prevention approaches is limited. A major strength of mHealth IPV prevention programming is the ability to tailor interventions to individual victim needs without extensive human resource expenditure by providers.

IntroductionVictims of intimate partner violence (IPV), or those individuals susceptible to IPV victimisation or perpetration, may benefit from participation in primary, secondary or tertiary interventions to address or mitigate exposure to violence despite mixed evidence of IPV intervention effectiveness. However, participation in such programmes is limited by poor access, sociocultural barriers and programme cost. As the world fast approaches universal access to the internet, web-based technologies and low-cost smartphones, new avenues to provide preventive health services including mobile health (mHealth) tools, platforms and services have emerged. The objective of this systematic review is to assess current web-based and mHealth interventions, which include web-based or mobile-based delivery methods for IPV prevention. Interpersonal violence is defined as perpetration or victimisation of a physical, psychological or sexual nature among adults. Interventions may be at the primary, secondary or tertiary level of the public health model.Methods and analysisThis systematic review will incorporate studies focused on any empirical prevention intervention intended for IPV victims or perpetrators of any gender where one or more components is web based or mobile based. Articles will be retrieved from the following academic databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Open Grey, as well Google Scholar. Results will be limited to articles reporting primary data, published since 1998, and in English, Spanish, Portuguese or French. Data extraction procedures will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guidelines. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, a critical appraisal tool, will be used to record ratings of quality and risk of bias among studies selected for inclusion. Content analysis and between-study comparisons will be used to answer the objectives of this review.Ethics and disseminationResults from this review will be published in an open access format for the benefit of both academic and non-academic audiences, including community organisations and individuals seeking mHealth strategies to reduce and prevent IPV.Trial registration numberCRD42019123006.

No abstract

Global climate change and the continued neoliberalization of food systems have exacerbated levels of food insecurity and hunger, producing an ever-expanding population of displaced persons who are also nutritionally vulnerable. Restrictive immigration policies in post-arrival and resettlement contexts compound with other cultural, social, political, and economic conditions to negatively affect the food security and health of displaced persons. This article engages a comparative ethnographic perspective for examining the migration-food security nexus. Drawing on ethnographic research with Mexican and Central American im/migrants in the Western United States, Haitian im/migrants in the Dominican Republic, and African im/migrant populations in Italy, this article analyzes local experiences of food insecurity in restrictive immigration policy contexts through an intersectional lens. Finally, this article examines the possibilities for engaged research oriented toward generating “healthy publics” and addressing food insecurity across disparate geographical and political settings and amid structural and social constraints.

Findings from research demonstrate that student writing proficiency and classroom writing instruction is a national concern (Applebee & Langer, 2006, 2009; Graham, Harris, Fink‐Chorzempa, & MacArthur, 2003; Persky, Daane, & Jin, 2003). This qualitative study explored principles of effective writing instruction through the perspectives of leading authorities in the field of writing. Five major themes of effective writing instruction emerged: (1) Effective writing instructors realize the impact of their own writing beliefs, experiences, and practices; (2) Effective writing instruction encourages student motivation and engagement; (3) Effective writing instruction begins with clear and deliberate planning, but is also flexible; (4) Effective writing instruction and practice happens every day; and (5) Effective writing instruction is a scaffolded collaboration between teachers and students. This article summarizes recommendations for best practices in the writing classroom.