A qualitative investigation of gender-based violence prevention and response using digital technologies in low resource settings and refugee populations

ABSTRACT

Background: Governmental and non-governmental organizations across medical, legal, and psychosocial sectors providing care to survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) and their families rapidly digitalized services during the COVID-19 pandemic. GBV prevention/response services working with women and children who are forcibly displaced and/or living in low-and-middle income countries (LMIC) were no exception to the rapid digitalization trend. Literature is lacking a critical synthesis of best practices and lessons learned since digitalization replaced major operations involved in GBV prevention/response.

Objective: This research qualitatively investigated how GBV service providers, located in a range of socio-political settings, navigated the process of digitalizing GBV prevention/response during the COVID-19 crisis.

Method: Semi-structured key informant interviews (KII) with GBV service providers in varied sectors were implemented virtually (2020–2021) in Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, and Italy (regarding forcibly displaced women/girls for the latter). Participants were recruited using purposive and snowball sampling. Interview guides covered a range of topics: perceived changes in violence and service provision, experiences with virtual services, system coordination, and challenges. The KIIs were conducted in Portuguese, Spanish, Arabic, and Italian. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated into English. The research team conducted thematic analysis within and between countries using a structured codebook of data driven and theory driven codes.

Results: Major themes concerned the: (1) spectrum of services that were digitalized during the COVID-19 crisis; (2) gender digital divide as a barrier to equitable, safe, and effective service digitalization; (3) digital violence as an unintended consequence of increased digitalization across social/public services.

Conclusion: Digitalization is a balancing act with respect to (1) the variety of remotely-delivered services that are possible and (2) the access/safety considerations related to the gender digital divide and digital violence.

HIGHLIGHTS

• Digitalization occurs when products and services are converted to digital forms; violence prevention/response services working with women and children who are forcibly displaced and/or living in low-and-middle income countries were no exception to the rapid trend of digitalization during the COVID-19 crisis.

• Using key informant interviews with service providers working in violence prevention and response sectors in Brazil, Guatemala, Iraq, and in Italy regarding forcibly displaced women/girls, we investigated the rapid digitalization of gender-based violence prevention/response during the COVID-19 crisis.

• The effectiveness, safety, and equitability of digitalized violence prevention/response services depends on how well they are balanced vis-a-vis the gender digital divide and risk of digital GBV.

Antecedentes: Las organizaciones gubernamentales y no gubernamentales de los sectores médico, jurídico y psicosocial que prestan atención a los sobrevivientes de la violencia de género (VG) y a sus familias digitalizaron rápidamente los servicios durante la pandemia de COVID-19. Los servicios de prevención y respuesta a la violencia de género que trabajan con mujeres y niños desplazados por la fuerza o que viven en países de ingresos bajos y medios no fueron una excepción a la tendencia de digitalización rápida. La literatura carece de una síntesis crítica de las mejores prácticas y lecciones aprendidas desde que la digitalización sustituyó a las principales operaciones implicadas en la prevención/respuesta a la VG.

Objetivo: Esta investigación cualitativa investigó cómo los proveedores de servicios de VG, ubicados en una gama de entornos sociopolíticos, navegaron por el proceso de digitalización de la prevención/respuesta a la VG durante la crisis COVID-19.

Método: Se realizaron entrevistas semiestructuradas a informantes clave (EIC) con proveedores de servicios de violencia de género de diversos sectores de forma virtual (2020–2021) en Brasil, Guatemala, Irak e Italia (en este último caso, en relación con las mujeres/niñas desplazadas por la fuerza). Los participantes fueron reclutados mediante muestreo intencional y de bola de nieve. Las guías de las entrevistas abarcaron diversos temas: cambios percibidos en la violencia y la prestación de servicios, experiencias con los servicios virtuales, coordinación del sistema y desafíos. Las entrevistas se realizaron en portugués, español, árabe e italiano. Las entrevistas se grabaron en audio, se transcribieron y se tradujeron al inglés. El equipo de investigación llevó a cabo un análisis temático dentro de los países y entre ellos utilizando un libro de códigos estructurado de códigos basados en los datos y en la teoría.

Resultados: Los temas principales se referían a: (1) espectro de servicios que se digitalizaron durante la crisis COVID-19; (2) brecha digital de género como barrera para una digitalización de servicios equitativa, segura y eficaz; (3) violencia digital como consecuencia no deseada de la creciente digitalización en todos los servicios sociales/públicos.

Conclusiones: La digitalización es un acto de equilibrio con respecto a (1) la variedad de servicios prestados a distancia que son posibles y (2) las consideraciones de acceso/seguridad relacionadas con la brecha digital de género y la violencia digital.

KEYWORDS:

• Domestic violence
• violence against women
• digitalization
• LMIC
• online
• remote services
• GBV
• gender digital divide
• digital violence
• refugee

PALABRAS CLAVE:

• Violencia doméstica
• violencia contra la mujer
• digitalización
• PIBM
• en línea
• servicios a distancia
• violencia de género
• brecha digital de género
• violencia digital
• refugiado

1. Introduction

As technology has improved, making it easier to connect with people in digital spaces, many sectors have embraced digitalization by making information, processes, and systems accessible digitally. The digitalization of gender-based violence (GBV) services, defined as the process through which information and communication technologies (ICTs) (i.e. phones, tablets, radio, computers) become the primary medium for GBV prevention and response operations, has expanded substantially since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We use the term digitalization to describe the shift to technology based GBV prevention and response services, wherein the communication technologies used need not require internet connection. GBV is an umbrella term for a variety of human rights violations (domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual assault, femicide, childhood sexual abuse, trafficking, etc.) that are perpetrated within a context of a power imbalance: violence is perpetrated based on socially ascribed gender differences that underscore a power hierarchy between (i) males and females as well as (ii) cisgender and transgender/gender fluid persons (The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards, 2023). GBV is enacted both in public and private spaces and can result in physical, sexual, mental, and economic harm, including reduced quality of life, disability adjusted life years, and premature mortality (The Inter-Agency Minimum Standards, 2023).

Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, technological innovations in telehealth, messaging tools, social media platforms, and web-based applications and portals initiated movement toward digitalization in GBV prevention and response. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, GBV prevention and response organizations realized that providing continuity of care during movement restrictions required the immediate digitalization of services. Thus, COVID-19 accelerated the digitalization of GBV services.

In both high resource and low resource settings, GBV perpetration increased during the COVID-19 pandemic (Piquero et al., 2021; Storer & Nyerges, 2023). As countries enforced stay-at-home orders to slow the spread of COVID-19, many women and girls became isolated in their homes with abusers (Evans et al., 2020). Fear of COVID-19 infection, decreased socio-economic status, and isolation exacerbated stressors and tensions within the home (Parry & Gordon, 2021). Pandemic control measures implemented in absence of violence protections made it more difficult for individuals to safely contact response services, increased survivors’ economic dependence on their abusers, limited interactions with mandated reporters, intensified barriers to reporting GBV, and compromised survivors’ social support (Evans et al., 2020; Parry & Gordon, 2021). In low resource settings, such as LMIC and among forcibly displaced populations, fewer social protections (i.e. laws protecting women and children from violence, livelihood/welfare supports, health care infrastructure, etc.) and pre-existing social disparities (i.e. food insecurity, xenophobia, precarious labour) magnified the harmful impacts of stay-at-home orders, household stress, and service closures on GBV (Asi et al., 2022; John et al., 2023; Phillimore et al., 2022; Shahen, 2022; Vahedi et al., 2021). When GBV service providers realized the impacts of the pandemic on GBV and the simultaneous interruption to in-person support, they rapidly digitalized their services to provide continuity of care.

Drawing on the literature, we conceptualize digitalization as encompassing four interrelated activities: (1) adaptation of activities that would normally have occurred in-person to ICT delivery (i.e. adapting in-person social support groups for survivors to SMS applications); (2) creation, evaluation, and implementation of ICT-delivered programmes, services, and operations where no in-person version exists (i.e. the evaluation of GBV safety planning applications); (3) minimizing the digital gender divide by improving women and girls’ skills and access related to ICT; inclusive of addressing harmful gender norms; and (4) ensuring adequate technical ICT capacity, safety, and access among service providers responsible for the digitalization of GBV prevention and response (Emezue, 2020; Potter et al., 2022; Qushua et al., 2023; Storer & Nyerges, 2023; Wood et al., 2022).

Emerging literature has investigated the digitalization of GBV prevention and response services during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring issues such as best practices, digital training needs, and safety concerns. Some of the digital services and interventions in high-income countries (HIC) identified in the literature include: digital interventions to help IPV survivors make decisions about their safety and access support (Emezue, 2020); applications aimed at preventing and responding to sexual violence in college communities (Potter et al., 2022); increased usage of GBV helplines (Weller et al., 2021); and GBV information campaigns disseminated over social media, radio, and television (Pearson et al., 2021). Literature from HIC identifies key advantages in the digitalization of GBV services, including some survivors having safer and more accessible options for information on how to leave abusive partners; some survivors preferring the anonymity of digital interventions and online support; and digital options being more accessible to survivors in areas with few GBV support services (Emezue, 2020). Disadvantages of digitalization for survivors include not being able to access ICTs due to not owning hardware or not having the appropriate digital skills (Toccalino et al., 2022) and some abusers controlling survivors’ digital access and movement, thereby making it unsafe to seek virtual GBV services (Toccalino et al., 2022).

GBV service providers in HIC also experienced advantages with digitalization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers were able to accommodate a wider range of options for contact and reach women who had not been able to access services (Cortis et al., 2021). Digitalization enabled some continuity of care to clients despite quarantines through web-conferencing, text messages, and phone calls (Storer & Nyerges, 2023). Finally, virtual training was accessible to a wider range of service providers (Potter et al., 2022). Disadvantages for practitioners involved challenges in building virtual rapport with survivors and difficulties identifying non-verbal cues and visual signs of GBV (Weller et al., 2021). While this literature base is useful in considering the advantages and disadvantages of GBV prevention and response digitalization, it primarily draws on lessons learned from HIC and among service providers working with populations who do not experience forced displacement. The context of digital infrastructure, digital literacy, and access to ICTs is different in low – and middle-income countries (LMICs) and among forcibly displaced populations, thus posing implementation challenges to digitalization of GBV prevention and response.

The socio-political realities of LMICs and among forcibly displaced/refugee populations (which we term low resource settings, regardless of where refugees are displaced) influence the digitalization of GBV services. ICT infrastructure limitations, reduced social spending on violence protection, substandard literacy and digital literacy, and lack of available and affordable ICTs are more prominent in LMICs and among forcibly displaced populations (Toccalino et al., 2022). In these settings, digitalization presents additional implementation challenges as individuals may not have adequate access to ICTs, electricity, and/or internet connection and, often, this lack of connectivity is exacerbated by the feminization of poverty wherein women and girls engage in precarious labour for survival (Scott et al., 2021; Vahedi, Seff, et al., 2022). Further, digitalization in GBV prevention and response is a nascent field particularly for LMIC and forcibly displaced/refugee populations. There is a current lack of standard indicators for monitoring and evaluation of GBV prevention and response digitalization. Cross-country research from these settings remains crucial for public policy and social service strengthening.

In LMICs, COVID-19 magnified vulnerability to violence among women and girls living in extreme poverty, exposed to precarious labour, and living in refugee camps or remote areas due to mass unemployment, increased household stress, movement restrictions, and reduced social support (Measuring the Shadow Pandemic, 2023; Roy et al., 2022). For example, rural Indigenous women living in remote Guatemala without access to electricity, could not reliably use ICTs to access GBV care and resided far away from metropolitan centres where protection services are centralized (Vahedi, Seff, et al., 2022). Further, women and girls who are forcibly displaced women in European Union (EU) countries faced increased vulnerability to GBV due to the preexisting context of overcrowded shelters with limited access to ICTs, thereby limiting the ability to access online GBV support groups (Phillimore et al., 2022). While these forcibly displaced women may reside in EU countries, issues related to inequitable access to ICTs remain similar to the women and girls in LMICs.

During COVID-19 a variety of GBV services and activities were digitalized in low resource settings (LMIC and forcibly displaced/refugee populations): online portals to report violence and abuse, telehealth services, mobile app based screenings, and social media campaigns (Huang et al., 2022; UN Women, 2020). However, much is left unknown regarding unique logistics and needs, context specific challenges and lessons learned, and what service providers working in fragile and underfunded social sectors need in order to continue their essential virtual work in a safe, equitable, and effective manner. The 2022 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report on fragile settings noted that ‘responses to the pandemic highlight emerging digital inequalities’ and that ‘the digital transformation happening worldwide is a double-edged sword’ (States of Fragility, 2022). Synthesizing best practices for digitalization of GBV services remains a critical need given that women and girls in LMICs and experiencing forcibly displacement face an increased risk of GBV during crises such as COVID-19 and often have compromised access to ICTs (Phillimore et al., 2022; Toccalino et al., 2022).

1.1. Purpose

We sought to qualitatively investigate how GBV providers working across a range of socio-political settings navigated the process of digitalizing prevention and response services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.2. Methods

1.2.1. Study settings

Data for this study were collected across four different contexts: Iraq, Italy, Guatemala and Brazil. The populations of interest varied slightly across sites and key informant samples reflected these foci. For example, the research objectives in Italy focused on refugee and other migrant women and girls and thus all key informants in this site served this population in some capacity; in Brazil, the majority of key informants served women and girls in urban slums and surrounding communities. Refer to the Supplementary Appendix A for a description of each country setting.

1.2.2. Data collection

Virtual key informant interviews (KIIs) were conducted between March and November 2021. Purposive sampling was used to recruit service providers across a range of GBV prevention and response roles and sectors. Recruitment was carried out in conjunction with study partners at UNICEF country offices. After each UNICEF team compiled a list of key informants eligible for study participation, an email was sent to each key informant inviting them to participate in the study. Those who indicated interest in participating in an interview were contacted by a research team member to schedule the interview. Prior to beginning the interview, the study team member explained the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study to the participant and obtained verbal consent. Interviews in Italy, Iraq, Guatemala, and Brazil were conducted in Italian, Arabic, Spanish, and Portuguese, respectively. All interviews were conducted over Zoom and lasted 60–120 min. Fifty-one KIIs were conducted in Italy, 14 in Iraq, 16 in Guatemala, and 12 in Brazil.

Key informants represented a range of GBV-related service sectors, including the justice sector, shelters, GBV hotlines, and psychosocial support, among others, as well as diversity in role type, including but not limited to therapists, organizational directors, project and case managers, lawyers, hotline responders, cultural mediators, community mobilizers, and protection focal points. In Appendix B we present a tabulated description of each service provider, including their role/title and details pertaining to their organization (mission and type of organization). We briefly summarize key information about the organizations presented in our data here. In Brazil, anti-violence groups providing advocacy, mental health supports, and discussion groups represented half of the organizations recruited. The other half of organizations service providers worked for included police/legal, health care, grassroots community groups, and child protection. In Guatemala, service providers working for anti-violence organizations (both civil society groups and governmental) as well as justice organization (prosecutors, police investigators, children’s secretariat) were equally represented in the data, followed by GBV hotlines. In Italy, service providers working for anti-violence organizations that provided various services (i.e. shelters, hotlines) were the most recruited, followed by service providers working for health care organization, and anti-trafficking groups. Other organizations represented in the Italy data included a humanitarian organization focused on migrants, a legal clinic, an LGBTQI focused non-governmental organization and a linguistic and cultural mediation organization.

Semi-structured key informant interview guides (Refer to Appendices C, D, E) were developed by the research team in consultation with local UNICEF partners. Guides included questions on perceived changes in the risks and experiences of, and responses to, violence against women and girls, how GBV services transformed during the pandemic, challenges related to service provision, and innovative solutions for GBV service provision during periods of limited movement. Additional details on data collection and key informant interview guides in all four study sites can be found in previously published works (Gillespie et al., 2022; Qushua et al., 2023; Vahedi, McNelly, et al., 2023; Vahedi, Seff, et al., 2022). All study procedures were granted ethical approval by the Health Media Lab’s Institutional Review Board (HML IRB Review #361GLOB21 for Italy and #351ITAL21 for Brazil, Guatemala, and Iraq).

1.2.3. Data analysis

We analyzed data using ‘scientifically descriptive’ thematic analysis (Finlay, 2021). All interviews were transcribed and translated. Transcripts were analyzed in English by a team of researchers. The analysis proceeded in two stages using both deductive and inductive approaches: (1) country specific thematic analysis and (2) cross-country thematic analysis. First, using thematic analysis, the team qualitatively analyzed data from each country independently to understand patterns and meanings related to context-specific aspects of: GBV victimization, service provision challenges and lessons learned, and the digital space during the COVID-19 pandemic. We finalized country-specific codebooks, which comprised of data driven codes and codes that were conceptualized a-priori based on UNICEF country office needs and the literature base, after conducting a round of memoing, meeting with the research team to discuss the data, and training the team on code application and meaning. The country-specific codebooks were used to analyze all transcripts in their entirety. The team then identified digitalization as a common theme across all countries. The codebooks for each country included multiple parent and child codes relating to digitalizing GBV services during COVID-19 (i.e. digital GBV, digital divides, online services, social media, tech challenges faced by service providers, etc.) (Appendix F). In the second stage of analysis, two researchers extracted all excerpts that had been previously coded with any relevant parent or child code related to digitalization; four researchers read through the newly-formed transcripts and developed analytical memos. After meeting to review and discuss the analytical memos, the team used a combined deductive and inductive approach to draft a cross-country codebook focused specifically on digitalization of GBV prevention and response during the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted a second round of thematic analysis using this codebook (Appendix G). The cross-country codebook was developed and refined though an interactive process of practice coding, team discussion, and codebook editing. Literature on digital divides and benefits/challenges to digitalization informed the deductive codes. We also adopted a flexible approach to coding wherein data-driven (inductive) code adaptations or additions were allowed (Deterding & Waters, 2021) Transcripts were coded by a team of researchers and coded excerpts were then examined to identify themes related to digitalization that resonated across countries. The coding team met to collaboratively discuss the cross-country thematic structure and develop the three interrelated themes presented in the discussion as well as Figure 1. All analyses were conducted in Dedoose (Dedoose, 2023).

Figure 1. Illustrates the interconnected nature of the cross-country themes: (1) Digitalized GBV prevention and response services, (2) Gender Digital Divide, and (3) Digital violence. We position the spectrum of GBV prevention and response services and activities that can be digitized (as detailed in Theme 1) on the top half of the figure. Prevention activities are in green and response activities are in yellow. The effectiveness, safety, and equitability of these digitalized services depends on how well they are balanced vis-a-vis the gender digital divide (Theme 2) and risk of digital GBV (Theme 3). To provide safe, equitable, and effective digital services, governmental and nongovernmental organizations supporting GBV prevention and response must reinforce the development and implementation of digitalized services/activities by also investing in gender transformation and addressing harmful gender norms. We visually represent the need for reinforcement as the balancing point (in need of reinforcement) between digitalized services and the gender digital divide as well as digital violence. Both individual and environmental aspects of the gender digital divide must be addressed for both survivors and providers. Individual-level aspects of the gender digital divide include: investment in mitigating the risk of digital violence, improving digital skills and access to hardware of appropriate quality and with the necessary accessories. Environmental aspects of the gender digital divide include: privacy and safety within households or community setting, digital infrastructure, and gender norms that promote women and girls safe access and skills related to ICTs.

Note: The variety of gender-based violence prevention and response services that can be digitalized are positioned as a rectangle on the top half of the figure, the potential harms of the gender digital divide and technology facilitated violence are positioned as a triangle on the bottom half of the figure, and where the services and the potential harms meet is the reinforcing point.

2. Results

Figure 1 visually depicts the three themes we explore below. We draw attention to the variety of GBV prevention and response activities that were digitized across settings (Theme 1). Prevention consisted of public information dissemination, training sessions, and community and solidarity building among women and girls. Response activities included community and solidarity building for survivors, violence reporting or disclosure, and specialized service provision. The ability to mount an equitable, safe, and effective GBV prevention and response digitalization strategy is circumscribed by the gender digital divide (Theme 2) and technology-facilitated violence (Theme 3). In Figure 1, we conceptualize GBV prevention and response digitalization as a balancing act with respect to the gender digital divide and digital violence. Addressing the key aspects of the gender digital divide affecting both survivors and providers (individual level: digital skills, hardware quality and access and environmental level: privacy and space, digital infrastructure, harmful gender norms) and digital violence (electronic blackmail and digital grooming of minors, leading to sexual and labour exploitation) in a context-specific manner is critical to ensuring the proper and safe functioning of all digitized GBV prevention and response activities.

2.1. Theme 1: describing GBV prevention and response digitalization during COVID-19

Due to pandemic-imposed movement restrictions and the risk of COVID-19 transmission, service providers rapidly digitalized operations that normally would have occurred in person to maintain continuity of care. In all study sites, service providers shared that ICTs were used to conduct a range of prevention and response activities ranging from general public communication to specialized care of survivors. Digitized activities discussed included: (1) public information dissemination (i.e. radio, television, social media campaigns) where service providers and advocacy groups disseminated information to reach a desired audience; (2) knowledge sharing trainings, courses, and workshops (i.e., use of Zoom or Skype to implement internal and external workshops); (3) communication between women and girls to improve social support (i.e., SMS communication groups between women); (4) GBV reporting/disclosure (i.e., receiving reports via secure email, phone, crisis and support line, website, mobile application); and (5) service provision across legal, medial, mental health, and psychosocial support sectors (i.e. one-on-one sessions with specialized service providers via videoconferencing, phone, or SMS).

2.1.1. Social media campaigns

The use of ICTs to raise awareness for GBV and advocate for systemic change was mentioned in all settings. For example, in Iraq, the radio system presented episodes on ‘hot issues in the community’, including ‘the subject of domestic violence during the COVID-19 period and the inability of women to access services’ (Iraq_14). Providers also continued or started using social media as an advocacy tool during the COVID-19 pandemic. Service providers generally agreed that information dissemination increased awareness for GBV services and reporting. For example, a service provider from Iraq stated:

For women who use social media, this change has had a significant impact as these topics have not previously been posted on social media. In the past, we have only raised these topics in schools and universities through our meetings with students, but now we have seen that we have been able to reach a segment of women who have not spoken on such topics but are now speaking through social media. There are a lot of comments and discussions happening through these platforms, so I think the impact is significant. I expect the impact in the future to be greater because we intend to turn many of our activities into online activities. (Iraq_15)

A service provider from Italy shared similar sentiments regarding the positive aspects of social media campaigns:

Lately more women know where to go if they face GBV, thanks to awareness campaigns on the issue and to social networks. Nowadays, many people contact us via Facebook, or via Facebook women chat with other women who had in the past a similar experience and who then turned to us to get out of it. (Italy_18)

Information was also disseminated through social media by activists and service providers to increase the pressure on policy actors to enact legislative change in favour of GBV survivors. The use of social media (YouTube, Snapchat, Facebook, Instagram) as an agenda-setting tool was particularly prominent in Iraq, where victims and activists sometimes posted information on GBV cases using ‘fake names so they have nothing to fear when they publish a story’ (Iraq_2) while garnering ‘public attention and … active public discourse around these cases’ (Iraq_1).

In Iraq, service providers ‘noticed more interest in the issue of domestic violence and violence law legislation’ due to the social media advocacy campaigns putting ‘pressure on the state institutions’ to ‘demand more services and attention’ (Iraq_1).

One case that was shared widely on social media involved a GBV survivor from Najaf, Iraq, who was ‘burned as a result of being subjected to domestic violence’ (Iraq_1). The survivor’s sister published a video on social media to publicize this often-hidden human rights violation, leading to public outcry and increased pressure on national and international actors to protect Iraqi GBV victims: ‘Following the video, family violence became an issue of public opinion for a month and the whole society reacted including social media, NGOs and the international actors’ (Iraq_1).

2.1.2. Building connections to reduce isolation

Digitalization was generally described favourably in terms of widely disseminating webinars and training opportunities, both internally (for staff) and externally (for the general public or clients) (Guatemala_14). For forcibly displaced women and girls with access to ICT, digitized psychosocial activities helped to mitigate feelings of loneliness and isolation. For example, an Italian service provider working with migrant women and girls stated:

When Sicily turned into a red zone in January 2021, we organized many activities on Zoom, so women were not alone and did not feel isolated like they did during the first lockdown. So for at least two hours during the day, they had an opportunity to chat, to see other people, to do yoga, to do many things. (Italy_6)

Another example of digitized community building in Italy was the creation of women’s’ social media support networks:

Not being able to go out, many women have used smartphones to create social support networks and to share the difficulties they were facing. Of course, social media is not the same as social interactions in person, but this has partially compensated for the lack of moments of aggregation and helped to bring out some situations of vulnerability. (Italy_5)

2.1.3. Reporting/disclosure

Opportunities for remote reporting/disclosure of GBV during movement restrictions were essential to adapting GBV response to ICTs, since reporting/disclosure is the first step in triggering GBV response. For example, one service provider from Guatemala explained that the COVID-19 pandemic forced her department to ‘open another channel for receiving complaints’ by using email (Guatemala_4). Remote GBV reporting/disclosure was described positively (although this sentiment may be more applicable to context with higher digital literady), one benefit being survivors’ increased confidence to report:

I think people are trending towards using these electronic channels for making a complaint instead of doing it in person. My perception is that writing a complaint instead of using their voice gives the people more confidence. Maybe it’s about not having to tell the story to someone face to face. They’d rather write it and vent via email. Then we receive the email and intervene. But I do believe that it’s likely that the increase in complaints might be the result of this new channel we opened. (Guatemala_4)

Similar adaptations were also made in Brazil, where domestic violence survivors were able to submit police reports online. One Brazilian service provider discussed establishing a ‘virtual police station’, allowing GBV cases to be reported online such that ‘a person registers a complaint’ and it is ‘forwarded to a police station that has the [ability] to investigate that crime’ (Brazil_4). Additional steps were also taken to increase community access to computers by making them available in a physically distanced manner at a local women’s protection agency:

I made a computer available at the reception of [x], so that the victim that didn't have a computer, but wanted just that space here to register and not have contact with other people, was also given this opportunity. (Brazil_11)

In Brazil, the same service provider also described an increased use of the national GBV crisis line (Disque-Denúncia, Dial 180):

There was a very large number of denunciations received by Dial 180 in the pandemic, including national actions that were taken: Maria, there were some others that were made during the pandemic, because of the number that was triggered throughout the country. I believe that this was due to … there was a lot of publicity, publicity actions related to the 180, and we had this demand. (Brazil_11)

2.1.4. Specialized care

Specialized legal, medical, mental health, and psychosocial GBV care was also digitized. However, using ICT to offer continuity of specialized care to survivors was not always perceived as comparable to in person care. In Guatemala, judicial hearings and assessments involving child protection cases were virtually adapted using Zoom and this ‘prevented taking children to the courthouses’ (Guatemala_15). Using ICT to facilitate virtual hearings/assessments, legal counsel was described as having less control over the home environment, potentially resulting in difficulties when assessing cases of child abuse:

Children are in an environment where they are being abused or their rights are being violated. Removing them from that environment has helped us to identify how to better support them, because we cannot be sure that during the interview the mother will be making faces or the father telling them not to say anything. (Guatemala_15)

The need for digital security measures was also mentioned, particularly regarding the enhanced requirements for storing Zoom recordings of legal proceedings. One service provider from Guatemala stated:

We had to ensure, from the central system of the Judicial branch, that those virtual hearings were saved, not in the cloud but directly in the servers of the Judicial branch … the model impedes anyone to have access to the information except from the Judicial Branch servers. (Guatemala_9)

The ability of lawyers to offer legal advice remotely varied by country and ICT. In Iraq, a legal provider mentioned that the Bar Association ‘imposed a penalty on anyone who provides legal advice via social media’ (Iraq_15). Lawyers offering legal services on social media had to ‘ask the woman for a phone number so [they] could contact her and provide advice by telephone, so that [lawyers] do not get punished’ (Iraq_15). However, limitations on legal social media use did not severely impact remote legal counsel because women were generally able to share contact information and legal service providers worked to coordinate referral services in other social service sectors:

Many women provided their phone numbers, communicated with us, and even women who requested relief assistance were referred to relief organizations that provided relief assistance such as food, baby supplies, and more. We have a lot of contacts with organizations that work in areas other than the areas where we operate. (Iraq_15)

Italian service providers working with migrant women and girls mentioned ‘the transition to online was not easy’ because ‘migrant women very often do not have many technological means at their disposal’, other than phones. This service provider explained that while WhatsApp was a ‘fundamental tool’ in continuing psychosocial support provision, it also posed communication issues when coordinating care for complex GBV cases, compared to offering in-person response services:

Organizing meetings on WhatsApp with a mediator, social assistant, psychologist and the woman was overly complex … Dealing with such complex issues on WhatsApp was definitely a problem. I remember the case of a migrant woman who found herself homeless during the pandemic, with a little girl. She had suffered psychological abuse from her partner. She was initially hosted by her sister, and then by a friend of hers. She moved to different houses and this uncertainty was causing her many traumas. Dealing with these issues in this scenario was extremely complicated for us. Eventually she entered a safe community. But managing the emotional aspects of her pain and anger via WhatsApp was really complicated. On top of this, the communication was sometimes interrupted by technical problems. (Italy_36–37)

Further, when the first line of triaging and referral to specialized care is done by phone, implicit signs of abuse or victimization may be harder to spot and document, potentially limiting the detection of cases and referral to appropriate care:

Regarding cases of GBV, I want to emphasize that usually the signals are implicit. It was already difficult to see signs of people experiencing violence when the first level of support was done face to face, even though our responders are extremely empathic and intuitive, and thus they can detect cases of violence. Certainly, now that the first level of support is entirely conducted over the phone, these signs and the resulting emergence of situations of violence is a bit more difficult. This was a noticeably big limitation. (Italy_7)

While phone-based support may be more limited, service providers who used video conferencing did not share the same concerns regarding detection of domestic violence cases. In contrast, other service providers from Italy spoke about being able to virtually enter a patients’ house and identify risk for violence:

During online sessions you enter your patients’ house. You can observe and get a feeling of the family atmosphere; it happened often to notice a girl who got scared, who froze, or did not want to talk about her husband, showing clear sign of family tensions and of a potential risk of domestic violence. These observations would have not been possible during a [face to face] therapy session, but it was easy to identify through the webcam of the online meetings. (Italy_9)

In Brazil, a social worker employed in a domestic violence centre for women in Rio de Janeiro mentioned a variety of virtual group sessions for survivors. One monthly and virtual information group session began during COVID-19, when ‘contact with women was very restricted’. In describing generalized group sessions, the service provider stated:

We held an informative group and explain [our organization] and what services we have available. We explain what we mean by gender violence and domestic violence. We also talk about the assistance network, who [survivors] can ask for support if [they] need help, and which are the institutions [they] can access. So, this reception group is an informative group that includes a social worker, a psychologist, and a lawyer from the service to inform [survivors]. It is not a very participative group because these are women that we still do not have a relationship with. So, we avoid talking too much in this group so as not to create a status of exposure. We answer general questions in the group. (Brazil 7)

Tailored virtual sessions were also available for survivors with cases registered with the domestic violence centre. For example, virtual group sessions of four to six women survivors improved communication and learning between women

We have the smaller groups that are with women who are already in a process that the team evaluates; they can meet with other women who are experiencing similar situations, but who are in different stages of violence and empowerment. (Brazil 7)

Larger online groups were also described, which focused on reflecting on survivors’ issues/experiences and building relationships between survivors and service providers. These online groups helped service providers identify common issues experienced by survivors during the pandemic and tailor sessions accordingly:

We have a reflective group, which is for women [who have already accessed services]. This group has 20 women that participate. Women bring a question, and this question is deepened and reflected upon in this group. We also work on strengthening the bonds between women and between the services. Women realize that they are not alone. That they can access information and make contacts as well. Another group that also emerged during the pandemic, is the Domestic Violence and Parental Alienation. This one came up because we started to receive many women suffering domestic violence who were being threatened or accused of being alienators by their ex-partners. We always invite a specialist or an expert on the subject so that we can talk to these women about strategies to strengthen themselves … guarantee their rights, and understand that this is just another form of violence. (Brazil 7)

2.2. Theme 2: gender digital divide: a threat to successful and equitable GBV digitalization

Our data demonstrated the ways in which the gender digital divide serves as a barrier to equitable, safe, and effective GBV digitalization, for both survivors and providers. Respondents in all four study sites discussed the digital divide, which manifested as (1) inequitable access to digital infrastructure (i.e. internet, fixed telephone or mobile phone subscription and related costs, fixed broadband, etc.); (2) availability/usage of ICTs (i.e. mobile phone, radio, television, computer, etc.); (3) ICT quality (i.e. whether screens are cracked, battery life, access to accessories such as microphones or headphones, etc.); and (4) digital skills (i.e. connecting to wifi, typing, texting, etc.). Further, the presence of gender norms that limit women and girls’ independent use of ICT can create or perpetuate gender inequities as digitalization unfolds. Digitalization activities and processes require an adequate baseline equitable level of ICT access, availability, and skills within a gender equitable environment. Thus, failing to address the gender digital divide may translate to inequitable, unsafe and ineffective GBV digitalization.

Service providers offered a nuanced understanding of the gender digital divide, discussing the limiting aspects of not only ICT hardware access and digital literacy but also the lack of privacy and space, inadequate electricity, unstable or no internet connection, living in rural/remote areas, and harmful gender norms. Thus, facilitating survivors’ access to hardware and digital skills did not adequately address the ecology of barriers regarding women and girls’ full and inclusive use of ICT for GBV care. Within each country, service providers spoke about different barriers related to the gender digital divide. Although our data cannot speak to concrete differences between settings, we draw on quotes within each country to describe the most pressing aspects of the gender digital divide.

2.2.1. ICT access/availability

In Brazil and Guatemala, service providers predominantly spoke about the gender digital divide in terms of hardware and internet access. Brazilian service providers frequently referenced their own lack of hardware access and the consequent impact on survivors’ access to services and safety. One service provider stated that staff ‘had to use [their] personal resources to be able to cope with this demand’ in the absence of the government ‘guaranteeing material resources such as telephones, internet, and computers’ (Brazil_07).

Another Brazilian service provider based in Roraima mentioned that video calls, intended to replace face-to-face communications, and referrals to care were difficult to conduct due to inadequate internet infrastructure, thereby reducing survivor safety:

Unfortunately, here in Roraima, we have many problems regarding the internet, both because of the electric power and because of the constant fiber breaks. Here, it rains and the internet goes down … We didn't want to send the person out of the house to look for specific care, because we didn't know if they would find it, because of the chaos that the health system was in, you know? We also felt confined, because we didn't know what steps we could take. (Brazil_09)

In Guatemala similar sentiments about the lack of hardware and internet among the service providers were shared.

Now that the virtual world has reached the criminal process, the prosecutors didn’t have computers with cameras for the virtual hearings. So, this is definitely another problem. Working in a digital environment also requires funds because the internet isn’t free. (Guatemala_16)

2.2.2. Digital skills

Even when hardware was provided, lack of digital skills prevented survivors’ use of ICT to engage with the GBV response system. One service provider from Brazil described the limitation in providing publicly accessible computers for survivors to report GBV cases in the absence of also promoting digital skill strengthening:

The computer that we made available … it was hardly used. The person would come, [and] they had difficulty in accessing it … because they didn't know how to do it, even if we put a booklet next to the computer, the person would sit here, on the page to register … but people didn't know how to do it alone. So, what I realize is that even if you give people the opportunity to do it, perhaps because of their education, even because of their knowledge, people prefer to come in person. (Brazil_11)

A Brazilian service provider noted that working in the GBV sector during the COVID-19 pandemic was mentally and emotionally challenging. Service providers became ‘emotionally ill’ due to ‘work[ing] with violence and losing people [they] knew including relatives’ (Brazil_07). In parallel, service providers also had to ‘be open to learning new technologies to increase access among women’. The team was forced to rapidly adapt operations as well as translate newly acquired digital skills to survivors:

There are these technological issues: How do I create a Zoom group? How do I make a group through Meet? How do I give a voice to women? How do I teach these women to use these technologies if I did not even use them before, or I did, but I wasn't responsible for them. So, it was a period of a lot of dedication … The team gave as much as they could to the maximum number of women to the service and with quality. (Brazil_07)

2.2.3. Internet infrastructure and access

For service providers working to prosecute cases of violence against women, specialized one-on-one communication with survivors was not always possible using virtual formats because of the high internet cost: ‘Internet access is limited. It all goes back to the budget’ (Guatemala_16).

When one service provider was probed on whether survivors could access the internet, they stated having to work alongside ‘organizations that could provide tools for women to receive information’ and ‘other government institutions … that provide internet’. As the service provider described ‘it’s essential to us to partner with an institution that can provide them with tools’ (Guatemala_14).

Further, regarding reporting, when the shift to ICT happens quickly in response to a crisis, the ‘lack of information, credibility, or a technological tool makes it difficult to use that resource, plus the online process is slower and people don’t feel quite confident that their complaint has been filed’ (Guatemala_14). Ultimately, those without internet or hardware access were largely excluded from service provision:

If people don’t have the technology to reach out to us, and they can’t go out of their homes to come to the center, they fall through the cracks of the system because we cannot reach them. Even if there is the possibility to file reports and submit your documents online, most people still go to the brick-and-mortar offices because they have no internet access. Sometimes, they own a smartphone but have no credit or anything. They sometimes only top up their phones with 5 quetzales that day to be able to send an email, but they can’t afford to spend more than that to take their classes or receive therapy. They were forced to prioritize their resources. (Guatemala_2)

As simply stated by one service provider, ‘some people would like to be served virtually but they do not have resources because they have to pay for the internet’ (Guatemala_1).

Given we sampled providers serving rural and remote areas in Guatemala, our data were able to capture hardware and internet access issues among survivors living away from metropolitan areas. For example, one service provider stated, ‘there are communities that have no cell phones, so how can one provide one’s services and reach out to them if there is such a great technological barrier?’ (Guatemala_2)

However, under normal operations, persons from rural/remote areas had to ‘mobilize from one point to another to get to a court’ and access legal services. This often implied transportation costs. However, ‘from the moment it was warranted for people to attend virtual hearings, instead of hindering, [this] enabled’ people to ‘save mobilization time’. What was required was to ‘look for a smartphone, which sometimes they didn’t have, or to look for a computer and internet’. Thus, access to ICT hardware and internet replaced transportation costs for rural/remote Guatemalan communities located hours away from the municipal hub. To further exemplify this point, one service provider noted that service provision was less likely to reach communities ‘eight or nine hours away’ due to ‘lack of transportation, internet, or a phone or because they just do not know; it's complicated for information to reach those communities’ (Guatemala_15).

In Iraq, inadequate internet infrastructure was described as a key barrier to digitalization. One service provider reflected on why remote sessions were not successful, explaining that:

The community where we are working has reduced access to electricity and internet connection, so it was not possible, unless there was a massive investment in providing the community with tablets and with credit. (Iraq_5)

2.2.4. Gender norms

Beyond challenges with internet accessibility, service providers from Iraq described women’s, and especially girls’, inequitable access to and safe use of ICT within the household. For example, one ICT device may be shared among multiple household members, including men and boys, who are typically afforded greater access as a result of gender norms. For women and girls, inadequate access to ICT due to these harmful gender norms was often described in relation to education. For example, one service provider stated that many ‘women borrowed their father or brother’s phone to take [an] exam’ (Iraq_15). Further, the service provider stated that ‘sometimes women have a phone but are forbidden to use social media’, thereby illustrating how harmful gender norms not only limit access to ICTs but also what websites and features women and girls have the freedom to access (Iraq_15).

In other cases, some women and girls cannot access ICTs due to ‘family customs that do not allow women to have their own telephone and number’. Consequently, girls face a disproportionate risk of forgoing their education given the challenges in maintaining ‘remote communication with schools’ (Iraq_8). One service provider illustrated this point by explaining that:

Girls would be prevented by their fathers from using the phone. The fathers often prevent the use of phones due to the belief that their daughters will use the phone for “bad” purposes. There was a case where a girl had been crying because she didn’t have a phone and couldn’t complete online school without it and so, she reached out to her school principal for help. The principal could not come up with a solution for her problem and told her that she must get a phone. The girl then ended up having to withdraw from school because her parents would not allow her to use or get a phone. (Iraq_8)

Given that male household members maintain priority access to ICTs, to provide GBV care, service providers had to understand at what point in time women and girls could safely secure access to technology. For instance, for a family that owns a smartphone whose primary user is a husband who works outside of the phone, ‘you [must] provide the activities in the night, or the phone is not available’ (Iraq_5).

2.2.5. Privacy

In Italy, among forcibly displaced women and girls, compromised privacy and space, which are sometimes needed to remotely access information and care related to GBV, was a key component of the gender digital divide. Forcibly displaced women and girls are often housed in reception centres or live in small or multi-family units in urban centres; this environmental reality limits both space and privacy and reduces one’s ability to seek sensitive and potentially stigmatized care and information. One service provider from Italy reflected on the physical conditions faced in migrant reception centres in Italy and how the lack of space reduced accessibility to mental health care:

In a reception center there are at least four or five girls in one room, so asking everyone to go out because a girl has a psychological online session was sometimes not easy. (Italy_6)

As clearly stated by one service provider, ‘The pandemic has unfortunately highlighted the fact that often girls do not have private places in the reception centers. It was problematic for them to talk about past issues and personal delicate stories, because they did not have access to a private space where they could be alone’ (Italy_9).

For forcibly displaced women and girls living outside of reception centres, ‘very often [women and girls] only have a bed and not even a private room’ often having to ‘share rooms together with their children and other families’, which leads to experiencing difficulties in ‘finding private spaces to talk [with service providers]’ (Italy_36–37). When in-person communications in a safe location could not be accommodated due to pandemic-related stay-at-home orders, one service provider reflected on how digitalized service provision reduced the quality of service provision and introduced safety concerns for forcibly displaced women and girls:

I believe [difficulties in finding a safe space to talk to us in peace] has severely affected migrant women. Talking about one's feelings and traumas over the phone is normally emotionally difficult, but on top of that, there were not always the conditions for them to talk in a quiet and safe setting. I felt the impact of physical distance quite a lot while I was working remotely. During face-to-face meetings, we can often understand women’s needs without them explicating their problems, through half of a sentence, through a look, even though a moment of silence. However, over the phone these perceptions fail. (Italy_36–37)

2.3. Theme 3: technology-facilitated GBV: an unintended consequence of digitalization

Safety concerns are the most pressing ethical consequence of digitizing GBV service provision and reporting. While safety concerns (i.e. risk of violence retaliation if abusers are aware of help seeking/reporting/safety plans to flee abuse) can still occur during in-person operations, service providers have less control over the care environment when survivors virtually engage with the GBV system. Safety concerns were most often mentioned in relation to children and online grooming. For example, in Guatemala, one service provider noticed an increase in online sexual crimes such as online harassment and grooming. Legal frameworks in Guatemala do not recognize such forms of violence as crimes, resulting in ‘prosecution becoming almost impossible’. Further, the service provider stated, ‘the education system is not teaching us or anyone how to protect our children from what happens online. I think during the pandemic, with such a boom of online [activities], we have fewer possibilities for protecting our children’ (Guatemala_3). Similarly, in Brazil, abusers were using online communication channels to lure children into a ‘network of sexual exploitation, including [labor exploitation]’ by promising fake modelling and singing opportunities (Brazil_05). Service providers described the ‘very strong solicitation’ of children into exploitation using ‘the internet, WhatsApp groups, and Facebook groups’ (Brazil_06).

One service provider from Iraq discussed the unintended consequence of potentially exposing children to online harm when NGOs distributed ICT for educational purposes without the appropriate safety precautions:

There was no age category, no regulations on the tablets that were managed by the organization … The other thing was some of the applications that we used to use to communicate with children, such as Zoom, weren't the safest. And then shifted to WhatsApp. WhatsApp is really risky because everyone can exchange numbers and you do not know what happens after working hours. Maybe one of the children is not the female child that we are thinking. It has happened that some of the phone numbers were exchanged with the brothers with the fathers and there were a lot of cases of safeguarding where children were being harassed, [and]were being eh let's say uh used, were being uh threatened. (Iraq_10)

Most prominent in Iraq was the issue of digital or electronic blackmail, in the absence of an adapted legal framework to protect victims. Service providers perceived that increased digital blackmail incidence parallel the COVID-19 pandemic and was tied to abusers’ economic gain. For example:

Electronic blackmail is common in our society and has increased since COVID-19 started; it is often done by extended family members because they often know the family’s circumstances. (Iraq_8)

Given COVID-19 reduced the socio-economic position of men and boys and some were forced to ‘stay at home without a source of income or a way to get money and [resorted to] e-blackmail as the only way to get money’ (Iraq_15). One service provider from Iraq expressed:

We are now facing a new type of violence: digital violence or electronic blackmail, it is scary and needs action. Lawyers and investigators don’t have the knowledge about this topic … most blackmail cases are for reputation and honor related issues and also financial blackmail. (Iraq_13)

The same service provider further explained that ‘many women candidates have been subjected to electronic blackmail because the election is near’, thereby demonstrating digital violence is being used as a tool of political intimidation of women leaders (Iraq_13).

3. Discussion

This research investigated GBV prevention and response digitalization as a global phenomenon in Italy (among forcibly displaced women and girls), Brazil, Guatemala, and Iraq. We qualitatively investigated how GBV service providers across countries navigated the process of digitalizing prevention and response during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first theme described the spectrum of digitalized prevention and response activities. We illustrated the variety of remotely-delivered services that can be implemented. The second theme offered a nuanced understanding of GBV prevention and response digitalization by examining the digital gender divide. Women and girls’ inequitable access to ICTs may threaten the ability to mount an equitable, safe, and effective digitalization strategy. We illustrated contextually specific individual and environmental aspects of the gender digital divide (access to digital infrastructure, availability of ICTs, quality of ICTs, digital skills, harmful gender norms, as well as space and privacy) that must be taken into account while planning to digitize services. The last theme of digital violence addressed unintended consequences of increased reliance on technology: online digital violence affecting women and children.

We further synthesized the three themes visually in Figure 1, where we represent the process of digitalization as a balancing act between the variety of violence prevention and response activities that can be digitalized (at least in theory) and the barriers to safe, equitable, and effective digitalization: gender digital divide and digital violence. Taken together, the themes and Figure 1 illustrate that digitalization is not a ‘magic bullet’ that can seamlessly be implemented during a pandemic or epidemic context to address violence. Rather, digitalization activities must be weighed against their capacity to enact unintended harm or inequalities via the gender digital divide and digital violence. Responsible social and public policy that integrates digitalization strategies must involve addressing gender inequity and harmful social norms as well as the chronic underinvestment in the technological capacity of social services in LMIC and among forcibly displaced populations. Digitalization does not automatically expedite or provide shortcuts to achieving gender equity and resilient social services.

It is possible to digitize a variety of prevention and response activities and services. Considering all digitalized services mentioned in our data across all countries, prevention and response activities can be organized into distinct categories. Digitized prevention strategies included: (1) public information campaigns that were disseminated via social media, radio, and TV by both service providers and activists; (2) training sessions for generalist or specialist audiences that were delivered using video-conferencing software (Zoom, Skype, etc.); and (3) community and solidarity building where women and girls who are at risk of experiencing violence can connect virtually and access information via websites or instant messaging platforms. Digitized GBV response activities included: (1) community and solidarity building where survivors of violence can participate in virtual group activities or be in communication using instant messaging platforms; (2) violence reporting or disclosure using secured ICTs such as phones, websites, email; (3) specialized GBV service provision involving legal, medical, mental health or psychosocial support sectors using video conferencing, phones, or instant message.

Although the GBV sector has become increasingly digitized, it is important to recognize the limitations of this mode of service delivery. Our findings highlight that, oftentimes during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic, GBV services cannot be delivered safely, effectively, and equitably online. In these instances, governments have a mandate to advocate for the inclusion of GBV services as ‘essential’ so that in-person delivery can be guaranteed for those without safe access to ICTs. Ultimately, services that are digitalized in one setting may not be safe, equitable, and effective in another setting. The metaphor of the ‘balancing act’ is useful here; public policy must weigh the benefits and consequences of digitalization in times of crisis by taking into consideration potential harms due to digital violence and the risk of systematically excluding certain populations from violence prevention and response due to the gender digital divide.

Our data pointed to some limitations in using internet-delivered prevention and response services in areas where there are individual and environmental barriers to safely accessing ICT, thereby emphasizing the need to balance addressing the gender digital divide with digitizing efforts. If the gender digital divide is not addressed, GBV prevention and response will remain less available to women and girls who live in areas with lower quality electricity and internet infrastructure and who cannot afford independent ICT ownership, which are all characteristics of lower socio-economic standing and gender equity (Seff et al., 2021; Vahedi, Qushua, et al., 2023). In high-income contexts, where conditions related to digital skills, hardware quality and access, digital infrastructure, and norms supporting women’s use of the digital space are generally met, it is recommended that GBV prevention and response practitioners focus on developing digitized services that ensure the safe delivery of services. For example, GBV service providers in high-income countries have incorporated safety mechanisms into online services, including establishing code words or signals to indicate a breach of privacy as well as emergency exit buttons for participants (Pfitzner et al., 2020). In our study contexts, predominantly representative of lower-resource settings, more nuanced considerations related to having the physical space and privacy to discuss GBV as well as social norms conducive to women and girls’ independent use of ICTs emerged as important determinants of the gender digital divide. It is clear that the digitalization of GBV and other health services is here to stay, yet it is vital that we recognize the limitations of this mode of service delivery and remain vigilant in identifying when online GBV services cannot be delivered safely, effectively, and equitably. It is in these instances that the GBV community must advocate for the WHO’s classification of GBV as an ‘essential service’, so that in-person service delivery can be guaranteed for those without safe access to ICTs (Guidorzi, 2020).

The increased reliance on the digital space for social service provision and social discourse helped to ensure access to necessary care and social support for survivors; however, at the same time, the digital revolution that accompanied the pandemic ushered in unintended consequences for women and girls. While many negative consequences may be unintended, they can be anticipated and – more importantly – prevented (Oliver et al., 2019). The development of programmes and services, particularly when delivered online, must employ processes, such as the CONSEQUENT framework, that engage multiple stakeholders to anticipate and strategize for unintended consequences (Stratil et al., 2023); future research and programme and policy evaluations should also allow for the measurement of any unintended consequences anticipated during the planning process (Bamberger, Tarsilla, & Hesse-Biber, 2016). During COVID-19, women and girls’ increased reliance on ICTs for GBV and other social services unintentionally heightened their risk of sexual grooming and digital blackmail. It is recommended that future efforts toward the digitalization of GBV services should anticipate and mitigate these risks through awareness campaigns for women and girls through media and other platforms, online courses on e-blackmail and digital violence for service providers, and ongoing training for providers on how to identify potential cases of online violence. Additionally, the technological revolution that accompanied the pandemic expanded the digital divide, further compounding pre-existing gender inequalities (Cheshmehzangi et al., 2022). For example, women without access to technology, who were already experiencing intimate partner violence, may no longer have been able to access formal or informal support, resulting in their further marginalization. When planning for and evaluating the unintended consequences of COVID-19 mitigation strategies, policymakers and practitioners should employ an equity lens to avoid the inadvertent widening of gender and other disparities (Turcotte-Tremblay et al., 2021).

3.1. Limitations

There are important limitations that must be acknowledged. First, translating transcripts into English may have resulted in the loss of context-specific meaning that could inhibit a richer interpretation of the KIIs. Second, while purposeful recruitment prioritized the selection of key informants from diverse GBV prevention and response sectors, it is possible that recruitment may have overlooked certain sectors or provider types resulting in a lack of perspective from non-represented sectors or provider types. The imbalance in the number of key informant interviews collected in Italy (among service providers working with forcibly displaced women/girls) in comparison to the other countries of analysis may have yielded a richer set of codes and thicker descriptions for Italy. Lastly, transcripts and excerpts were not double coded. However, we mitigated issues related to divergent interpretation of codes by conducting team training, calibration exercises, and routine meetings.

4. Conclusion

Our multi-country study focused on LMICs and forcibly displaced populations investigated how GBV survivors and providers navigated the digitalization of GBV services and care during the COVID-19 pandemic. We discuss three interrelated thematic categories: (1) spectrum of GBV prevention and response services that were digitized during COVID-19; (2) gender digital divide; and (3) digital digital violence against women and children. Our findings are relevant for national governments of LMICs, international organizations involved in GBV prevention and response among forcibly displaced populations. We conceptualize digitalization as a balancing act (refer to Figure 1) with respect to the risk of harm from the gender digital divide and digital violence. Not all prevention and response activities and services can be digitized safely, equitably, and effectively. The risk of promoting further gender inequities and digital violence must be weighed against the potential benefits of digitalization. Digitalization and its potential benefits is not a substitute for conducting essential gender transformative work across social services, reducing harmful gender norms, and investing in violence protection systems.

Author contributions

LV was responsible for: conceptualization, analysis, writing, training of research team, editing, figure creation. IS: conceptualization, analysis, writing, editing, figure creation, funding, data acquisition, supervision. RD: analysis, writing, editing LS: funding, data acquisition, editing. DE: funding, data acquisition, editing. CP: funding, data acquisition, editing. CM: funding, data acquisition, editing.

Acknowledgments

The research team would also like to acknowledge the supportive efforts of the project’s research assistants: Ms. Megan Sehr and Ms. Anjali Gujral.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from UNICEF Italy, Guatemala, Iraq, and Brazil, but restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for the current study, and so are not publicly available. Data are however available from the authors upon reasonable request and with permission of UNICEF Italy.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was made possible by the support of the American people through the US State Department Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration. The findings of this study are the sole responsibility of the contributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the US government. Grant ID: GR0022479; Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.