Introduction
The recruitment of participants and sampling are vital procedures in any field of research. Sampling directly impacts the accuracy of the study, the conclusions that the researchers may reach, and the proposed theoretical and practical implications. An inaccurate sample that fails to represent the whole population under consideration leads to the research results differing from those that can be obtained from an accurate sample, rendering them invalid. Therefore, the researchers need to obtain a sample representing the population in its entirety to accurately answer the posed research question. This review will examine the sampling design and recruitment procedures and the relationship between the sample and the population of three articles dedicated to domestic violence interventions. In addition, the measures employed in each study will be discussed.
Sampling, Recruitment, and Measures Review
Article #1
The first article is dedicated to the problem of domestic violence experienced by psychiatric care users. Trevillion et al. (2013) note that despite the prevalence of domestic abuse victims among psychiatric service clients, interventions offered to them are limited. The sample is clearly identified in the text, and both clinicians and patients using psychiatric services were recruited for the study. The authors provide a brief explanation of how the sample for the study was obtained. The service users’ recruitment via care coordinators’ referral and self-referral are described in detail; however, it is unclear how the five community mental health teams that participated in the study were engaged (Trevillion et al., 2013). It is noted that no exclusion criteria were assigned to the mental health team clinicians, while the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the selection of psychiatric care patients are clearly identified. Thus, male and female survivors of domestic violence aged 18 and over were eligible for the study, with individuals excluded if they were deemed too unwell to participate. Information on the screening procedures applied to clinicians and clients is provided, with face-to-face interview sessions utilized for participant screening.
It is clear from the article that the target population of the research study includes psychiatric care clinicians as well as their patients who might have experience with domestic violence. The relationship between the sample and the target population is clearly outlined in the objectives of the study as well as in the introduction section. However, Trevillion et al. (2013) state that the sample size is relatively small and, therefore, does not represent the target population as a whole.
The authors utilized several instruments to measure a variety of concepts associated with the proposed intervention. Thus, instruments used to measure clinicians’ awareness and knowledge of domestic violence and clients’ quality of life, social inclusion, safety behavior, and indicators of domestic violence are described in detail (Trevillion et al., 2013). For example, the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life, Social Inclusion Scale, Camberwell Assessment of Need for Mothers, Safety Behavior Checklist, and Post-traumatic stress disorder Scale were selected, among others (Trevillion et al., 2013). However, the authors do not provide a detailed rationale for the measurement selection. In addition, the information on reliability and validity is not specified for each described measure.
Article #2
The second article concerns the evaluation of hospital-based advocacy services provided to individuals accessing emergency and maternity departments. The study aimed to evaluate the impact of such services on the survivors of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence and the cost-effectiveness of such services for hospitals that provide them (Halliwell et al., 2019). The sample recruited for the research is clearly identified and included all individuals seeking help from independent domestic violence advisors (IDVAs) who had consented to participation (Halliwell et al., 2019). A separate sub-sample of hospital and community-based IDVA clients who provided information pertaining to their physical and mental health was recruited. Five hospitals and five community IDVA services were selected for the study, but the authors do not identify how the services were recruited. No rationale for the sample size is provided by the authors. No exclusion and inclusion criteria or screening procedures are outlined, as all IDVA patients were eligible for the research study. The relationship between the recruited sample and the target population is clearly explained by the authors, and the results obtained from the sample are compared to the UK population as a whole.
In the course of the study, several instruments were employed to measure such indicators as sociodemographic characteristics, health services use, physical and mental health, safety outcomes, and domestic violence experience. Halliwell et al. (2019) identify which instruments measure which indicators and concepts with SF12 Health Survey, Hospital Anxiety, Depression Scale, and Primary Care Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Screen used by the researchers (Halliwell et al., 2019). Although each measure is described in detail, no rationale is provided for the selection of the used measures. The authors fail to provide the reliability and validity for each measure used during the study.
Article #3
The third reviewed article discusses the proposed eHealth intervention aimed at helping female victims of domestic abuse and intimate partner violence. The study sample is clearly identified, with the researchers planning to recruit 198 participants at baseline. The recruitment procedure is clearly outlined, with the participants being enrolled primarily through Facebook Ads and Google Ads (Gelder et al., 2020). In addition, the researchers contacted several mental health and healthcare organizations with information on the study and posters that could be displayed in the facilities. Gelder et al. (2020) provide the rationale for the sample size, which was calculated using General Self-Efficacy Scale. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are delineated by the authors. The former criteria include self-identification as a woman and a victim of intimate partner violence, aged 18 to 50, and stable Internet access (Gelder et al., 2020). Meanwhile, the exclusion criteria were the absence of intimate partner violence experience and the inability to communicate in Dutch (Gelder et al., 2020). A baseline survey was used as a screening procedure after signing up for the tested eHealth application.
The relationship between the sample and the target population is outlined by the authors. The sample of women aged 18 to 50 with experience of intimate partner violence is characteristic of the female population with experience of domestic abuse as a whole. The General Self-Efficacy Scale measurements provided by the researchers sustain a strong relationship between the sample and the populations, translating into an understanding that the former is representative of the latter.
The authors plan to utilize several instruments to measure such outcomes as self-efficacy in coping ability, adaptation to stress, anxiety, depression, perceived social support, perceived support from intervention, fear of partner, and gender roles. In particular, the General Self Efficacy Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Contemplation Ladder, Medical Outcomes Survey – Social Support (MOS-SS5), and Visual Analogue Scales are proposed (Gelder et al., 2020). The rationale for the measurement selection is outlined by the authors alongside the hypothesized outcomes. However, no information on the reliability and validity of the selected instruments is provided in the text of the article.
Conclusion
In summary, domestic abuse and intimate partner violence present a significant public health problem, and individuals from different backgrounds can be exposed to it. The reviewed articles present various approaches to the sampling and recruitment of participants with experience of domestic abuse and violence. They utilize different instruments to measure concepts and indicators under consideration, although there is an overlap in measures selected in the second and third articles.
References
Gelder, N. E., Van Rosmalen-Nooijens, K. A., A Ligthart, S., Prins, J. B., Oertelt-Prigione, S., & Lagro-Janssen, A. L. (2020). SAFE: An eHealth intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence – study protocol for a randomized controlled trial, process evaluation and open feasibility study. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–8. Web.
Halliwell, G., Dheensa, S., Fenu, E., Jones, S. K., Asato, J., Jacob, S., & Feder, G. (2019). Cry for health: A quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse. BMC Health Services Research, 19(1), 1–12. Web.
Trevillion, K., Byford, S., Cary, M., Rose, D., Oram, S., Feder, G., Agnew-Davies, R., & Howard, L. M. (2013). Linking abuse and recovery through advocacy: An observational study. Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences, 23(1), 99–113. Web.