These protocols summarise plans for a pilot randomised controlled trial of WeMatter, a digital, group-based support service for children and young people (CYP) aged between 8 and 17 years who are victim-survivors of domestic abuse.
This evaluation is part of the Domestic Abuse Evaluation Accelerator Fund, which seeks to build the evidence base around what works to tackle domestic abuse. A portion of the funding for these programmes was provided via the Evaluation Accelerator Fund run by the Evaluation Task Force, a joint Cabinet Office-HM Treasury unit providing specialist support to ensure evidence and evaluation sits at the heart of spending decisions. The findings from these evaluations will lay the foundations for the REACH Plan (Researching Effective Approaches for Children), a landmark five-year plan to find out what works to prevent domestic abuse and support child victims.
Developed by Victim Support, the WeMatter service provides digital group support based on trauma-informed cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) techniques, utilising the Rock Pool CYP Domestic Abuse Recovery Tooolkit. The services lasts 10 weeks in total, and consists of eight weekly sessions plus two one-to-one sessions at the beginning and at the end of the service.
We have commissioned Verian to conduct a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the intervention, consisting of an impact evaluation of the effects of WeMatter on improving CYP mental wellbeing, an implementation and process evaluation, and an analysis of the service’s costs.
Whilst some studies have explored the efficacy of in-person support, the impact and effectiveness of delivering support online to CYP remains mostly unknown and unevaluated. This study aims to address this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of digital, group delivery methods and assessing their suitability for providing support to CYP affected by domestic abuse. If found to be successful and scalable, the programme could be expanded, tackling the current support disparity experienced by many CYP across England.
The pilot impact evaluation aims to assess the viability of a full-scale RCT, and recommend an evaluation design. It also aims to provide preliminary evidence of whether the WeMatter service improves outcomes for CYP.
The research questions that the impact evaluation seeks to answer are:
Verian will also conduct:
This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive.
1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.
Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.
Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).
Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.
Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.
Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.