Survivor Perspectives on Interventions Aimed at Addressing Technology Facilitated Abuse: A Scoping Review

Background and Purpose: Technology facilitated abuse (TFA) is a pervasive vector of intimate partner violence (IPV), with survivors and advocates reporting its ubiquity in their daily lives and advocacy practice. However, little is known about the preferences and desires of survivors of TFA in terms of how and when they receive formal and informal support. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to understand the intervention needs and experiences of survivors of TFA to inform intervention development.

Methods: A literature search strategy was developed in consultation with a research librarian and implemented in seven relevant databases. After removal of duplicates, 440 articles were imported into Covidence for title and abstract screening. A team of three researchers conducted the screening. Inclusion criteria included peer-reviewed studies which collected original data assessing treatment, intervention, or program experiences or preferences of survivors who had experienced TFA. After title and abstract screening, 83 articles were reviewed as full-texts, and 13 were included in the final review. A data extraction table was developed based on the study questions, and the team double coded each included article to ensure accuracy in reporting. Findings were analyzed via extraction table review and content analysis of the resulting data.

Results: Of the included studies (n = 13), 7 employed mixed methods, 2 were exclusively quantitative, and 4 were exclusively qualitative. Sample sizes ranged from 20 (qualitative interviews) to 2752 (surveys) survivors of TFA, with sampling methods including snowball, purposive, and community agency-based recruitment. TFA was assessed via structured and unstructured approaches. Key themes related to TFA interventions included a sense that providers respond as if physical violence is a more serious problem than TFA, and that providers are not always equipped to address needs related to documenting and storing evidence of TFA. Ineffective responses also included common instructions to delete or turn off accounts or devices, which does not align with survivors wants or needs. Intervention needs identified across articles include the importance of advocate training related to healthy relationships, the importance of building empathy and rapport with survivors, technical and cybersecurity knowledge (especially related to staying safe online), and access to tangible supports. Feeling supported, ‘heard,’ and like their experiences with TFA were being taken seriously by formal service providers were crucial for positive experiences. Participants also highlighted the important role of empowered bystanders and informal support people who may be more effective in responding in-the-moment than ‘formal’ service providers or criminal legal system entities.

Conclusions and Implications: This study demonstrates ongoing gaps between the needs of survivors of TFA and the responses of service providers. Survivors report feeling that TFA is minimized, and that provider guidance related to withdrawing from technology use can be unhelpful. Effective support requires advocates and criminal legal system actors to be trained in empathy, healthy relationships, and cybersecurity, as well as building in informal supports and community responses. Interventions must prioritize survivor-centered approaches, technical knowledge, and tangible resources to ensure safety and support for those impacted by TFA.