Tailoring DFV Screening for Migrant/Refugee Women: Three Evidence Reviews and an African Australian Case Study
Tracks
Ballroom 1: In-Person & Online
| Tuesday, November 24, 2026 |
| 1:20 PM - 1:50 PM |
| Ballroom 1 |
Overview
Minerva Kyei-Nimakoh
Three Key Learnings
1. Many DFV screening tools are not validated or culturally adapted and so often miss non-physical abuse such as coercive control.
2. Survivors often encounter barriers that prevent disclosure and timely access to appropriate support. Non-tailored resources and referral pathways frequently fail to meet community needs and delay help seeking.
3. We need to co-design and test screening tools and culturally validated translations with migrant communities; co-create, pilot and evaluate tailored resources and referral pathways, and scale interventions that demonstrably improve access, safety and outcomes.
Speaker
Dr Minerva Kyei-Nimakoh
Research Fellow
University Of Melbourne and the Royal Women's Hospital
Tailoring DFV screening for migrant/refugee women: three evidence reviews and an African Australian case study
Presentation Overview
Background
Migrant and refugee women face higher risks of domestic and family violence (DFV) and barriers to safe disclosure and culturally safe care. We present three recent reviews that examine: (a) instruments used to screen and assess DFV in migrant populations; (b) migrant and refugee survivors’ qualitative experiences of screening and assessment in health/humanitarian settings; and (c) African migrant and refugee women’s experiences in high income resettlement countries. We then use an African Australian interview study to show why tailored care is needed.
Methods
We synthesised findings from: (1) a structured review of instruments used with migrant women (14 studies); (2) qualitative evidence synthesis of survivor accounts (5 studies); and (3) a meta synthesis of African migrant and refugee women’s experiences (21 studies). We then draw on an African Australian interview study exploring migration-related influences, help seeking, health system experiences and service priorities.
Results
A range of screening tools are used (e.g. Abuse Assessment Screen, HITS, ACTS), but evidence on accuracy, reliability and cultural adaptation is limited. Qualitative findings show four consistent needs: confidential, supportive settings; brief tools that capture non-physical abuse (coercive control); careful use of language and bicultural staff (which can build trust but also create role or confidentiality issues); and clear links to timely support. The reviews and African Australian study showed how migration-specific issues can delay help seeking and emphasised the need for culturally competent services and resources developed with communities.
Conclusions
Standardised, non-tailored approaches do not meet the screening and risk assessment needs of migrant and refugee women. There is a need to co-develop and validate DFV tools with communities, embed translation and cultural validation, invest in language access and trained bicultural staff. Finally, tailored resources and clear referral pathways should be co-created with communities and evaluated to ensure they improve access, safety and outcomes.
Migrant and refugee women face higher risks of domestic and family violence (DFV) and barriers to safe disclosure and culturally safe care. We present three recent reviews that examine: (a) instruments used to screen and assess DFV in migrant populations; (b) migrant and refugee survivors’ qualitative experiences of screening and assessment in health/humanitarian settings; and (c) African migrant and refugee women’s experiences in high income resettlement countries. We then use an African Australian interview study to show why tailored care is needed.
Methods
We synthesised findings from: (1) a structured review of instruments used with migrant women (14 studies); (2) qualitative evidence synthesis of survivor accounts (5 studies); and (3) a meta synthesis of African migrant and refugee women’s experiences (21 studies). We then draw on an African Australian interview study exploring migration-related influences, help seeking, health system experiences and service priorities.
Results
A range of screening tools are used (e.g. Abuse Assessment Screen, HITS, ACTS), but evidence on accuracy, reliability and cultural adaptation is limited. Qualitative findings show four consistent needs: confidential, supportive settings; brief tools that capture non-physical abuse (coercive control); careful use of language and bicultural staff (which can build trust but also create role or confidentiality issues); and clear links to timely support. The reviews and African Australian study showed how migration-specific issues can delay help seeking and emphasised the need for culturally competent services and resources developed with communities.
Conclusions
Standardised, non-tailored approaches do not meet the screening and risk assessment needs of migrant and refugee women. There is a need to co-develop and validate DFV tools with communities, embed translation and cultural validation, invest in language access and trained bicultural staff. Finally, tailored resources and clear referral pathways should be co-created with communities and evaluated to ensure they improve access, safety and outcomes.
Biography
Dr Minerva Kyei-Nimakoh is a Research Fellow at the University of Melbourne. Her research examines how health services identify and support people experiencing Domestic and family violence (DFV). She designs and evaluates DFV programmes in clinical settings, with a focus on migrant and refugee communities. She coordinates evaluation of the Antenatal Screening in Multiple Languages Project at the Royal Women’s Hospital and other Victorian hospitals, which embeds a digital screening tool in English and over 30 languages. Her work aims to turn evidence into culturally safe, sustainable practice change.
