Introduction

According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) refers to:

“behaviour by an intimate partner or ex-partner that causes physical, sexual, psychological harm, including aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviours” [1].

This includes, but is not limited to, physical violence (hitting, slapping, beating and kicking), sexual violence (forced sexual intercourse and other forms of sexual coercion), emotional abuse (insults, constant humiliation, threats to harm, intimidation, threats to take away children), and controlling behaviours (isolating the victim away from friends and family restricting access to financial support, employment, medical care or education [2]. Globally, IPV committed by a male intimate partner, husband, or ex-husband remains the most widespread form of violence against women [1]. While IPV can significantly impact the short-, medium--, and long-term mental and physical well-being of women and children, it can also have serious economic and social consequences for societies and countries [1,3].

A global review of intersections of violence with other situations reports nuances concerning a higher prevalence of violence against children and women across specific social and historical contexts and countries [4]. For example, in the Global North, disabilities, fewer citizenship rights, broader immigration legislature, health challenges, and poverty may mean that Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) women and children are inappropriately represented as victims [5–9]. In England and Wales, data from the year ending March 2024 shows that an estimated 1.6 million (6.6 per cent) women aged 16 years and over experienced domestic violence in the last year, compared to 712,000 men (3.0 per cent) [10]. In addition, for the year ending March 2024, the data reported no significant differences between any domestic abuse estimates across different ethnic groups [10]. However, data from the previous year (year ending March 2023) reported a significantly higher proportion of domestic abuse experienced by mixed and White ethnic groups compared with Asian or Asian British groups. In the same way, “almost twice as many women in the white ethnic group experienced domestic abuse in the last year (6.0 per cent) compared with Black or Black British women (3.1 per cent) and Asian or Asian British women (3.0 per cent)” [11].

Within this context, evidence shows that IPV remains misrecorded and underreported among BME women in the United Kingdom, which could potentially influence reports on national estimates. Studies cite various forms of patriarchal silencing, i.e., within families and communities that reinforce women’s attitudes [12–14]. For instance, in Nigeria, the value of family (such as keeping family matters/issues within the family) can further prevent Nigerian women in the UK from disclosing their experience of IPV to outsiders [12,15]. Likewise, research on IPV and gender norms in some cultures and countries supports the claim by feminists to explain men using violence against women, particularly in marriage. Here, the feminist perspective views IPV in relationships as a result of patriarchy, where practices and societal structures enable men to exploit, dominate and oppress women.

Often, terms used to describe race and ethnicity, such as ‘Black and Minority Ethnic’ (BME) and ‘Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic’ (BAME), can be problematic and generally misunderstood [16]. In the UK, the term BME or BAME is mainly used to describe those from non-white backgrounds or minority groups who are subjected to racist practices of exclusion and marginalisation [17]. In addition, the term BME entails any ethnic grouping, including white ethnic minority groups (for example, Gypsy, Roma and Travellers), but excludes native white British groups [16,18]. In this context, the scoping review will use focus on and preferentially use the term ‘Black women’ as this recognises that individuals who identify with this term are minoritised due to the social processes of racialised domination and power and not just by their distinct statistical minorities [19]. However, it uses the terms used in the papers and studies where this is more appropriate.

Studies have investigated the disclosure and help-seeking behaviours of BME women who experience domestic violence; the findings highlight immigration status, language problems and unsupportive attitude of staff as obstacles to disclosure [15,20,21]. Hence, these barriers place power on the abuser, who uses these as a weapon to ensure that their victims are caught in a double-bind [22,23]. In this case, if the victim remains in the relationship, they experience abuse- If they attempt to access resources and services, they face severe negative repercussions from the abuser and, in some cases, barriers to services [15,21,24]. In addition, some studies suggest that BME women experience barriers to accessing services, mainly due to systemic racism and policy exclusion [25,26].

Other barriers may exist for Black women who require safety for themselves and their children. In some cases, women experience many lengthy periods of abuse before being able to separate from their partners or family. For BME women, access to services, the feeling of being safe and long-term recovery for them and their children remain important issues that need to be addressed [7,27]. Similarly, hostile and discriminatory policies further exacerbate disadvantages to migrant women and children who require justice, safety and support services. For example, the No Recourse to Public Funds (NRPF) under broader UK immigration legislation increases further barriers to Black immigrant women and children [5]. Those on the NRPF status are residents subject to immigration control, who do not yet have Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR) in the UK and who are not part of the European Economic Area (Non-EEA) [28].

In the US, previous research has shown that migrant women and children often struggle with different stressors that impact their attitudes and responses towards intimate partner violence [29,30]. For example, women’s vulnerability to abuse can be exacerbated due to their lack of awareness of legal rights and the available system in the host country. In the UK, immigrant women with insecure or unstable immigration status face other forms of abuse and control, together with domestic abuse, for instance, deportation threat, now known as “immigration abuse” [5].

Racialised inequalities are not adjacent but integral to how the health system responds to migrant women with NRPF [31]. This is further described in the concept of intersectionality by Crenshaw, which suggests that Black women experience the world (IPV included) differently than white ethnic groups due to intersecting factors such as race, gender, immigration and systemic responses [32]. It is well-established that BME women with insecure immigration status in the UK who are victims/survivors of IPV are best served by ‘By and for’ services, as they provide advocacy and holistic support that centre on women’s distinct intersectional needs [33]. However, these specialist services often come with challenges as they are mainly small, limited in capacity and numbers, and encounter significant issues with funding [33].

Above all, the impact of IPV and other forms of abuse negatively affects the mental health and well-being of Black women and children. Research on survival theory [34] indicates that women who experience domestic abuse often recognise their strengths and develop creative coping strategies. However, they are mainly unsuccessful in receiving adequate help or support due to institutional failure and systemic oppression. Although the term survivor is dominant and mainly used in the field, there have been some critiques [35] which suggest that the term survivor may not embody a complete outcome for healing as the term fails to explore a much longer-term recovery from abuse but rather focusing more on immediate freedom [36]. In this context, the term ‘thrivership’ offers a solution to the issues as it suggests that if women are thriving, they are growing, flourishing or prospering- thriving surpasses the lack of problems by signifying good health and well-being [8].

Similarly, thriving can be defined as an ongoing positive process of continuous growth through interactions with the human environment, which results in physical, social and psychological development and resilience [37]. Here, the positive end of thriving, also known as self-actualisation [38], is where survivors of IPV reach their peak (the survivors/thriver do not only overcome their traumatic experience but reach their fullest potential). Within this continuum process, each person grows and develops differently and at different rates based on their ongoing self-development and interaction with their environment [37]. The key concepts that shape and sustain thriving include factors such as personal perception, motivations and available resources. In this context, the way a woman relates to and navigates the adversities of her social environment, including the quality of interpersonal relationships [8].

Previous research indicates that spirituality often influences the thriving stage; women report feeling healed, no longer defined by their trauma, and committed to caring for their physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being [39–41]. Another study identifies the key components of thriving as providing safety, sharing one’s story, and social response [41]. While this study offers a standardised approach to how women thrive after IPV, a one-size-fits-all method for working with women from different backgrounds may provide limited insights into how services or practitioners can effectively support Black women through the thrivership process.

Hence, research on how Black women and children progress from surviving to thriving after IPV can help contribute to service responses and policy change. By recognising the strength and resilience of Black women, IPV specialist organisations can develop more effective, culturally sensitive interventions that foster a thriving journey towards self-actualisation. Additionally, contributing to policy change entails using a thriving model by policymakers to advocate for a more comprehensive policy that addresses the unique needs of Black survivors.

Methods

The scoping review will be guided by the five steps developed according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O’Malley [44], which complies with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations for elaborating a scoping review and Levac et al.’s [45] additional consultation recommendation stage: [1] identifying the research question, [2] identifying relevant studies, [3] selecting studies, [4] charting the data, [5] collating, summarising, and reporting the results and [6] consultation. The results of the scoping review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) [46], and data will be analysed using thematic analysis [47].

Discussion and conclusion

This protocol provides the scoping review framework, which includes Arksey and O’Malley’s [44] five stages and a consultation stage. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping review that would investigate the experiences of IPV among Black women and children living in the UK in relation to how IPV specialist organisations support them to thrive. Including stakeholders in the scoping review will add value to the review as this will help provide a further perspective on the reviewing process. A key strength of the review is that it can provide a thorough and transparent approach to mapping out studies (data retrieval, screening and analysis) related to the experiences of IPV among Black women and children residing in the UK and how they are supported to thrive. A further strength of the review will be identifying themes that enable reporting the findings in an accessible format. One limitation of this study is the lack of diversity in the population sample; however, this is justified as Black women and children are often underreported or underrepresented in academic studies. Hence, the study is valuable as it specifically addresses the experiences of intimate partner violence among Black women and children.

Above all, considering policy development, systemic failure, and social inequality, there is a need to understand better the experiences and need to thrive of Black women and children residing in the UK in relation to IPV and to what extent these women and children are supported to thrive by IPV specialist organisations. This scoping review will shed some light on their experiences through an intersectional lens. Thus, race, gender, immigration status and systemic failures can help explain how these different forms of marginalisation can shape Black women and children’s experiences of IPV. The findings from this review will aim to inform opportunities for thriving that address the needs of Black women and children survivors of intimate partner violence.

Supporting information