Strategies to Overcome Recruitment Challenges with Intimate Partner Violence Research During COVID-19

Overview:

Overview: The COVID-19 pandemic has adversely impacted survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and impacted their formal help-seeking. COVID-19 has also impacted how we conduct research with survivors living in IPV shelters. We offer four strategies from our experience conducting research with survivors living in an IPV shelter during COVID-19.Proposal text:

Background: Research demonstrates that the pandemic has led to increased rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) due to various stressors such as unemployment rates, lack of income, and low social support (Boserup et al., 2020; Campbell et al., 2020; Davis et al., 2020). Ironically, though, some studies also indicate a decrease in IPV service utilization (McLay, 2021; Nix & Richards, 2021). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted human subjects research and resulted in a shift in how research is conducted to ensure the health and safety of researchers and participants (Rashid & Yadav, 2020).

Methodology: We highlight the challenges we experienced while conducting primary data collection with IPV survivors living in an IPV shelter during COVID-19. We encountered two primary obstacles: the IRB pausing in-person data collection and low IPV shelter utilization. We discuss four strategies that we implemented to address the challenges we experienced. We conclude with implications for social work education.

Strategies: The strategies that we utilized included 1) engaging multiple community partners for data collection sites, 2) triangulating recruitment methods with some in-person recruitment and some virtual efforts, 3) broadening eligibility criteria to include Spanish-speaking participants, and 4) utilizing high-engagement tactics such as daily text messages and incremental compensation. By preparing for multiple data collection sites in advance, researchers are able to access larger, and potentially more diverse samples. Triangulating recruitment methods is helpful to accommodate survivors’ preferences and abilities. Even after COVID-19, some survivors may always prefer to meet virtually for privacy and confidentiality purposes or due to logistical limitations, while other survivors may prefer in-person connections. When possible, include study personnel fluent in languages other than English to increase the study’s reach and conduct more inclusive and socially just research. Finally, daily text messages and incremental compensation can help keep participants engaged in the study and thereby increase retention rates.

Conclusion: COVID-19 may be a long-term phenomenon that fundamentally alters social norms. Remote data collection may become the norm rather than the exception. Our experiences have implications for social work education and research. It is vital that social work education include content in research methods courses with graduate students about research designs that can withstand the impacts of COVID-19 and other public health emergencies on participant recruitment and data collection, especially procedures for engaging hard-to-reach populations. Additionally, it is crucial to educate students about emerging best practices related to conducting research remotely.