Explore the vast range of titles available.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a methodological approach where community–academic teams build equitable relationships throughout the research process. In the domestic violence (DV) field, CBPR may be particularly important when conducting research with racial and ethnic minority DV survivors, as this group faces concurrent oppressions that inform their lived experiences. To our knowledge, no systematic review has synthesized articles using a CBPR approach to explore the needs and lived experiences of racial and ethnic minority DV survivors. Using PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review of the literature, retrieving articles that used a CBPR approach to understand the needs and/or lived experiences of female racial and ethnic minority DV survivors residing in the United States. Articles were identified from peer-reviewed databases, bibliographies, and experts. Thirteen of the 185 articles assessed for eligibility were included. Articles focused on a variety of racial and ethnic minority groups, the majority identifying as African American or Latina. Collaboration occurred in multiple ways, primarily through equitable decision-making and building team members’ strengths. Several needs and lived experiences emerged including gender identity and patriarchal attitudes, racism and discrimination, the immigrant experience informing DV, poverty, shame and stigma, and the need for social support. This is the first systematic review of articles using a CBPR approach to explore the needs and lived experiences of racial and ethnic minority survivors. Implications include promoting community-based dissemination, conducting quantitative studies with larger sample sizes of DV survivors, and encouraging culturally specific services that address DV survivors’ intersectional needs.

In the absence of ongoing involvement in the communities that are the subjects of research, even well-intentioned researchers can develop questions that are not relevant to community needs, employ methods that hurt community members, or disseminate findings in ways that are inaccessible to those most affected. Recognizing these harms, a growing number of domestic violence (DV) researchers have embraced community-based participatory research (CBPR), an approach in which researchers and community members share power at every level of the research process, co-creating knowledge that can be applied to enhance community well-being. Despite growing interest in this approach, however, there are insufficient opportunities for interested researchers to learn how to actually engage in it, especially in the DV context. To remedy this gap, the authors of this paper collaborated to develop an online toolkit for emerging researchers interested in CPBR. This brief report frames the need for CBPR in DV research using short vignettes that come from our own research experience; introduces Power Through Partnerships: A CBPR Toolkit for Domestic Violence Researchers; and presents recommendations for developing, promoting, and disseminating future CBPR research. We chose to announce the development and availability of this toolkit in an academic journal in order to highlight its scholarly and practical relevance for researcher audiences who might be less familiar with the CBPR approach.

Attitudes toward same-sex intimate relationships and intimate partner violence (IPV) are changing. Little research, however, has examined norms about IPV in same-sex relationships. Using a fractional factorial (experimental vignette) design, we conducted random-digit-dialed interviews in four languages with 3,679 community-residing adults. Multivariate analyses of responses to 14,734 vignettes suggest that IPV against gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual women is more likely than that against heterosexual men to be considered illegal and that it should be illegal, police called, and a stay-away order issued. Regardless of gender and sexual orientation, the type of abuse and whether a weapon was displayed are the strongest predictors of respondents' judgments about whether a behavior is illegal and merits a range of societal interventions.

Community based participatory research (CBPR) partnerships simultaneously increase knowledge and community well-being. Despite the growing number of long-term (as opposed to project-specific) CBPR partnerships, research has yet to sufficiently explore factors that contribute to their success and sustainability over time. This study investigated this question by exploring the perceived benefits, barriers, and facilitators of participation in one long-term CBPR partnership, with particular attention to the role of power. Fifteen members and non-members of a CBPR partnership were interviewed, and data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Interviewees discussed the value of involvement in the partnership, including strong relationships, honest discussion of power dynamics, mutual learning, and capacity building. Barriers and facilitators to involvement included access factors (ability to be involved) and participation factors (desire to be involved.) Attention to power dynamics was an important benefit for members, yet culturally-specific organizations faced unique barriers to participation. The findings of this study suggest that future long-term CBPR partnerships should prioritize addressing inequitable logistical barriers to participation, discussing power dynamics and power-sharing, and “centering the margins” by focusing on the needs and interests of culturally-specific organizations.

The Domestic Violence Program Evaluation and Research Collaborative (DVPERC) was formed in Massachusetts in 2011 as an effort to connect research and practice. Initially, we consisted of a few programs and researchers, but we quickly evolved into a regional collaboration spanning several states. From the outset, we have followed community-based participatory research values, including co-learning, power sharing, and relationship-building. Several aspects of DVPERC make it unique. Our collaboration is informal, ongoing, and comprised of an array of programs, practitioners, and researchers. Although we are abundant in number, we are regional in scope, which allows for regular, in-person meetings. In this article, we describe the history of DVPERC, the five elements of the DVPERC model, and the model’s inherent benefits and limitations. Throughout, we infuse our practitioner and researcher perspectives on DVPERC involvement. We hope our honest description of DVPERC assists others interested in launching their own CBPR practitioner-researcher partnerships.

Domestic violence (DV), formerly considered as a private matter, is now recognized as a global social, health, and human rights issue. The acknowledgment of DV as such varies by geography and marital status (e.g., dating and same-sex relationships are not immune). Surveys around the globe suggest that DV is common among college students. A recent, 16-country study indicates that up to one fifth of university students have assaulted a partner severely enough to cause injury. International victims face extra difficulty because students must be in good academic standing and scholars must be employed to remain in the United States. International students and scholars may not consider DV to be a problem or know that it is a crime in the United States. In the spring of 2009, the authors invited the directors of International Offices (IOs) at the 10 US universities with the most international students to participate in an exploratory study. Structured telephone interviews, averaging 30 minutes, included questions about six areas: Job responsibilities; university DV polices regarding students, faculty, and staff; university procedures for gathering information about DV incidents; current IO programs and responses to DV; pressing issues facing IOs; and future projects related to DV that the IOs might undertake. Thematic analysis, in which responses were coded to identify themes across the participants, was conducted.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a risk factor for homelessness among women. Homeless IPV victims often use domestic violence (DV) and homeless shelters for safety and temporary housing. Knowledge about their patterns of shelter use both within and across shelter systems is limited. Guided by the tenets of bounded rationality (March & Simon, 1958) and feminist theory (Reinharz, 1992), the investigation aimed to determine patterns of shelter use among IPV victims who use DV and homeless shelters, assess differences among IPV victims according to shelter type, and determine if individual-level and shelter-use variables are associated with shelter users’ risk of a repeat stay. A secondary analysis was conducted of longitudinal administrative shelter records from all homeless and DV shelters in the city of Columbus, Ohio between January 2003 and June 2006. Bivariate statistics and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to analyze the data. A total of 1,114 IPV victims had at least one stay in a DV, family, or single-woman shelter. Most DV shelter users had one shelter stay compared to 42% and 39% for users of family or single-woman shelters. Those who returned often used the same type of shelter; cross-system use occurred among a considerable minority of all shelter users. Shelter-using IPV victims, as a group, were 34 years old, more often Black, without income, and in Homelessness and domestic violence shelter for about one week. Bivariate comparisons indicated that individual-level and shelter-use characteristics differed when shelter users were examined according to the type of shelter they used. Cox regression revealed that having two or more children and receiving income from a source other than employment were associated with a decreased risk of shelter return. Findings suggest that homeless IPV victims use all available emergency shelters, travel between systems, are a heterogeneous group, and face considerable barriers. By increasing the capacity and the housing-related assistance of DV shelters, more IPV victims could be served within the system developed specifically for them. In addition, on-going federal commitment in the form of financial support to individuals and housing providers can help achieve the structural efforts necessary to prevent homelessness among IPV victims.

Helicobacter pylori infection is the main risk factor for the development of gastric cancer, the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide. H. pylori colonizes the human gastric mucosa and persists for decades. The inflammatory response is ineffective in clearing the infection, leading to disease progression that may result in gastric adenocarcinoma. We have shown that polyamines are regulators of the host response to H. pylori, and that spermine oxidase (SMOX), which metabolizes the polyamine spermine into spermidine plus H2O2, is associated with increased human gastric cancer risk. We now used a molecular approach to directly address the role of SMOX, and demonstrate that Smox-deficient mice exhibit significant reductions of gastric spermidine levels and H. pylori-induced inflammation. Proteomic analysis revealed that cancer was the most significantly altered functional pathway in Smox−/− gastric organoids. Moreover, there was also less DNA damage and β-catenin activation in H. pylori-infected Smox−/− mice or gastric organoids, compared to infected wild-type animals or gastroids. The link between SMOX and β-catenin activation was confirmed in human gastric organoids that were treated with a novel SMOX inhibitor. These findings indicate that SMOX promotes H. pylori-induced carcinogenesis by causing inflammation, DNA damage, and activation of β-catenin signaling.

Tobacco product waste is environmentally hazardous but preventable. Therefore, it is important to understand tobacco disposal behaviors among those using tobacco products. To explore self-reported disposal practices of cigarette butts and electronic nicotine products (ENP) components among adults (aged 18+). We used nationally representative cross-sectional data from Wave 6 (2021; n = 29,516) of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) Study among adults who used cigarettes (manufactured and/or roll-your-own) and/or ENP every day, some days, or in the past 30 days. In 2021, 89.7% (95% CI: 88.7, 90.6) of adults who smoked manufactured cigarettes usually disposed of cigarette butts in landfills (in an ash tray, in a cigarette disposal, or in the trash). Most adults who usually disposed of butts in landfills smoked daily (73.1%; 95% CI: 71.3, 74.9) and smoked an average of 14.6 cigarettes per day. Among those who used ENP, most adults usually disposed of the components in landfills (disposable devices: 83.1%; 95% CI: 80.5, 85.4; empty pods and cartridges: 85.4%; 95% CI: 82.4, 87.9; coils and atomizers: 71.2%; 95% CI: 68.1, 74.1; batteries: 48.5%; 95% CI: 45.2, 51.9; e-liquid containers: 70.9%; 95% CI: 67.1, 74.5; and leftover or unused e-liquid: 50.5%; 95% CI: 45.8, 55.2). Recycling as a usual practice was limited for people who used ENP- for disposable devices: 6.0% (95%CI: 4.6, 7.8); empty pods and cartridges: 5.0% (95% CI: 3.7, 6.8); coils and atomizers: 11.7% (95% CI: 9.4, 14.5); batteries: 23.7% (95% CI: 20.9, 26.8); and e-liquid containers: 18.0% (95% CI: 15.1, 21.3). These findings demonstrate the large scope of tobacco product waste disposal in the United States and may inform efforts to address tobacco product waste management, such as environmental impact assessments and consumer education about proper disposal of tobacco products.

Evaluation and communication of the relative degree of certainty in assessment findings are key cross-cutting issues for the three Working Groups of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. A goal for the Fifth Assessment Report, which is currently under development, is the application of a common framework with associated calibrated uncertainty language that can be used to characterize findings of the assessment process. A guidance note for authors of the Fifth Assessment Report has been developed that describes this common approach and language, building upon the guidance employed in past Assessment Reports. Here, we introduce the main features of this guidance note, with a focus on how it has been designed for use by author teams. We also provide perspectives on considerations and challenges relevant to the application of this guidance in the contribution of each Working Group to the Fifth Assessment Report. Despite the wide spectrum of disciplines encompassed by the three Working Groups, we expect that the framework of the new uncertainties guidance will enable consistent communication of the degree of certainty in their policy-relevant assessment findings.