IMPACT: Effects of an Online Capacity-Building Intervention for IPV Prevention Professionals

Abstract

IMPACT, an online, interactive, capacity-building intervention for professionals engaged in direct intimate partner violence (IPV) work, was evaluated for preliminary efficacy. The IMPACT intervention comprised 13 training modules developed using the Rotheram-Borus Common Factors approach to prevention program development. In total, 156 participants from a diverse range of organizational settings across the United States completed baseline assessments and were randomized to the IMPACT intervention or to the control condition. Participants completed a follow-up assessment 3 months after baseline. Compared with control participants, IMPACT participants significantly increased their general IPV-related knowledge and their selfefficacy to utilize best practice IPV prevention strategies; effect sizes for these outcomes were moderate to large, indicating that these results are meaningful for IPV prevention practice. No differences by condition were observed in other outcomes such as scenario-based skills implementation or utilization of IPV-related strategies in participants' work. In addition, analyses showed that these findings were consistent across IPV prevention experience levels. Results suggest that IMPACT is flexible, generalizable, scalable, and a promising tool for disseminating IPV research into practice and helping to prevent IPV.

Online learning for allied health knowledge translation: A systematic review

“…40 An increase in confidence following online learning was measured in seven studies. 31,33,36,40,41,48,52 Confidence improved in all seven studies, with four studies of fair or good quality demonstrating statistical significance of their results. 36,40,41,48…”

“…31,33,36,40,41,48,52 Confidence improved in all seven studies, with four studies of fair or good quality demonstrating statistical significance of their results. 36,40,41,48…”

“…The final library of included studies contained 23 papers. 14,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]…”

“…Of the 23 papers included in the review, ten studies were based in Canada, 14, 32, 34, 35, 40-43, 49, 50 four in the United States of America, 33,36,39,45 two in Australia, 37,46 and one each in Mexico 51 and South Korea. 38 One study included participants from Israel, Canada and Australia.…”

“…One study could be described as excellent, 46 six as good, 14,33,36,39,41,43 thirteen as fair 31,32,34,35,38,40,42,44,[48][49][50][51][52] and three as poor 37,45,47 based on the Downs and Black score. 26 There was sufficient data presented in n=9 studies to be combined in a meta-analysis, which showed a significant improvement in knowledge after the online learning (standard mean difference 1.39; 95% CI = 0.96, 1.83; pvalue <0.01; I²=91%), 31,32,34,36,39,43,44,47,51 although the high I 2 value suggests heterogeneity in the analysis (Figure 2). All but one study included in the meta-analysis were rated fair or good quality studies.…”