This Evidence Gap Map (EGM) – developed by a research team from Emory University with funding from GIZ – highlights TFGBV prevention and response interventions, considering a broad range of TFGBV forms without limitations to time, language, or geography, that target a range of populations and are delivered across diverse modalities. With this, the EGM aims to identify current research gaps in evidence to understand what approaches are working, where more research is needed, and how future interventions can be improved.

Background

In response to the growing threats posed by technology-facilitated gender-based violence (TFGBV), researchers across disciplines have begun to develop and test interventions to prevent or respond to its occurrence. Existing systematic reviews of interventions have examined some facets of TFGBV, often limited by language scope and by neglecting a gender-diverse lens. As a result, the field has a narrower perspective of what works to prevent and respond to TFGBV than is warranted by the scale and urgency of the problem. Furthermore, there is no visual, interactive synthesis of the evidence to help guide research and funding in the field.

This Evidence Gap Map (EGM) on TFGBV aims to address these gaps by considering a broad range of TFGBV forms without limits to time, language, or geography. The EGM includes prevention and response interventions developed for a range of populations and delivered across diverse modalities. With this, the EGM identifies the extent of TFGBV and current research gaps in evidence to understand what approaches are working, where more research is needed, and how future interventions can be improved.

Findings

The EGM includes 37 studies (27 RCTs, 8 QEDs, and 2 systematic reviews). Only two studies were conducted in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) settings.

Interventions

• Twenty–eight studies focused on TFGBV prevention interventions while nine focused on response interventions; most studies used in-person (n=15) or online (n=14) delivery modalities.
• The length of interventions ranged from a single message/tweet to weekly, 3-hour sessions over almost a year.
• Youth were the most common population (n=22) followed by perpetrators (n=8), at-risk persons (n=5), the general public (n=3), and adult men (n=3).

Outcomes

• The most common forms of TFGBV investigated were cyber dating or partner abuse (n=11), hate speech or slurs (n=9), grooming (n=9), child sexual abuse material (CSAM)-related behaviours (n=5), and online sexual harassment (n=3). One study each examined sexism or misogyny, unwanted sexting, non-partner cyberaggression or cyber abuse, and cyber sexual abuse.
• Despite search terms that specifically targeted research on sextortion, doxxing, and stalking, no eligible studies included these outcomes.
• Only four studies assessed whether intervention effects differed by gender.
• Follow-up lengths differed substantially, with the most common follow-up length either immediately (n=10) or 1-month post-intervention (n=9) and the longest follow-up occurring 12 months post-intervention.

Intervention effects

• Intervention effects differed substantially across types of TFGBV. Interventions on CSAM and hate speech perpetration tended to show positive effects, whereas interventions on cyber dating abuse and grooming (perpetration or victimisation) tended to show null effects.

Implications for future research on TFGBV

• Expand testing of interventions across the range of TFGBV forms — especially new forms of TFGBV in the digital space, such as doxxing, sextortion, and deep fakes.
• Encourage investment in interventions and research in LMICs, as these are the least represented and have the largest share of the global population.
• Prioritise research involving high-risk and marginalised populations, specifically people with disabilities or LGBTQIA individuals.
• Examine longer-term impacts as well as intervention intensity when assessing effectiveness, as both are generally associated with an improved chance of and maintenance of behavioural change.
• Examine sex and gender differences in intervention effectiveness testing and reporting.
• Collaborate across disciplines to accelerate progress toward effective prevention and response interventions.

Outputs

How to use an Evidence Gap Map (EGM)

An EGM provides a visual overview of the existing research on a particular topic, helping users quickly understand the scope, strength, and focus of the evidence base.

In the interactive map, each bubble represents the type of evidence available for a specific combination of intervention and outcome. Click on a bubble to view details of a type of intervention, with links to studies.

You can explore the evidence gap map below. Alternatively, click the button to open it in a separate window.

Suggested citation: Hadd, A. R., Shervinskie, A., Evans, D. P., Cagney, J., Shakil, Z., Bergenfeld, I., Dessalegn, B., Reardon, E., & Clark, C. J. (2025). Prevention and response interventions for technology-facilitated gender-based violence: An evidence and gap map. Sexual Violence Research Violence.

If you know of any studies that might be eligible for inclusion in the map, we invite you to send the research papers or publications to svri@svri.org.

Have you used this EGM in your work or to inform research, policy or practice? Let us know by sending an email to svri@svri.org.