A Systematic Review of Coping Among IPV Survivors: How Is Coping Measured, What Do We Know, and Where Are We Headed?

Background and Purpose: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health problem that will impact about one in three women in their lifetime (Black et al., 2011). In additional to being highly prevalent, IPV is associated with a plethora of negative sequelae, including numerous mental health problems (e.g., Black et al., 2011; Campbell et al., 2002; Hien & Ruglass, 2009; Macy, Ferron, & Crosby, 2009). Fortunately, the path between IPV and its negative outcomes is not deterministic. A number of factors can influence the relationship between experiencing IPV and subsequently presenting with harmful, IPV-related consequences. Specifically, coping has been shown to mitigate the impact of IPV on mental health (e.g., Krause, Kaltman, Goodman, & Dutton, 2008). Coping refers to a range of strategies used to address the demands of a stressful or threatening situation (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). During the past three decades, there has been a substantial growth in studies examining IPV survivors’ coping strategies. A critical synthesis of the existing literature is necessary for informing social work practice, research, and policy. Therefore, this study aims to synthesize the literature on coping among IPV survivors, as well as critically examine how coping has been measured and the methodological strengths and limitations of existing studies.

Methods: A systematic search of eight bibliographic databases was conducted to search for all available articles published through Fall 2014. Search terms related to IPV and coping were selected and reviewed by experts in the field. A forward and backward citation search was also conducted. To identify articles most relevant to IPV survivors’ coping efforts and the measurement of coping, each article was assessed using a priori inclusion criteria. The systematic search identified 46 articles for review, which were abstracted for key study elements (e.g., aim, design, theory, sample, analysis, measurement, and findings).

Results: IPV survivors engage in various coping strategies. However, some forms of coping (e.g., safety planning, problem solving) are perceived as more helpful than other forms (e.g., minimization, substance abuse). In addition to identifying coping predictors, the reviewed literature demonstrates a strong connection between coping and mental health (e.g., depression, anxiety, posttraumatic stress, and self-esteem). Despite these general observations, comparisons across studies were complicated by the inconsistent conceptualization and measurement of coping. The most common conceptualization of coping was consistent with stress and coping theory’s classification of strategies as problem- or emotion-focused. However, other studies used engaged and disengaged, active and passive, religious, avoidance, and help-seeking. Further, few studies used IPV-specific coping instruments.

Conclusion and Implications: To integrate research across studies, greater consistency in the operationalization and measurement of coping is needed. Further, studies examining the coping efforts of survivors would benefit from using an instrument developed specifically for assessing coping in response to IPV and IPV-related stress, as oppose to a general coping instrument. Although it is clear that coping is an important malleable construct to be targeted in IPV services, continued exploration of survivors’ coping strategies is needed to guide policy and direct practice.