Gender-Based Violence Risk Mitigation by Non-GBV Specialists Prior to and during COVID-19: A Global Survey of Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices of Humanitarian Practitioners

Vandana Sharma, Annika Gompers, Jocelyn T. D. Kelly, Erin Patrick, Christine Heckman, Arsema Solomon and Jennifer Scott
Additional contact information
Vandana Sharma: Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA
Annika Gompers: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Jocelyn T. D. Kelly: Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA
Erin Patrick: CARE, New York, NY 10017, USA
Christine Heckman: United Nations Children’s Fund, New York, NY 10038, USA
Arsema Solomon: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA
Jennifer Scott: Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA

IJERPH, 2021, vol. 18, issue 24, 1-22

Abstract: Available evidence indicates that the COVID-19 pandemic and response measures may lead to increased risk of gender-based violence (GBV), including in humanitarian contexts. This study examined the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of humanitarian practitioners related to GBV risk mitigation approaches during COVID-19 in order to refine current guidance and inform future materials. A global, online cross-sectional survey of humanitarian practitioners was conducted between November 2020 and April 2021. We calculated descriptive statistics and used Chi-square or Fisher’s exact tests to compare knowledge, attitudes, and practices among GBV specialists and non-specialists. Of 170 respondents, 58% were female and 44% were GBV specialists. Almost all (95%) of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they have a role to play in GBV risk mitigation. Compared to GBV specialists, a higher proportion of non-specialists reported little to no knowledge on GBV risk mitigation global guidance (38% vs. 7%, p < 0.001) and on how to respond to a disclosure of GBV (18% vs. 3%, p < 0.001). Respondents reported several barriers to integrating GBV risk mitigation into their work during COVID-19, including insufficient funding, capacity, knowledge, and guidance. Efforts to mainstream GBV risk mitigation actions should continue and intensify, leveraging the lessons and experiences generated thus far.

Keywords: gender-based violence; humanitarian contexts; COVID-19; GBV risk mitigation; humanitarian response; protection; humanitarian aid (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2021
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13387/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/24/13387/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:24:p:13387-:d:706223

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().