Health Soc Care Community. 2018;1–22.  |  1wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hsc Received: 22 November 2017  |  Revised: 5 April 2018  |  Accepted: 7 May 2018 DOI: 10.1111/hsc.12587 R E V I E W A R T I C L E Towards an ecological understanding of readiness to engage with interventions for children exposed to domestic violence and abuse: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of perspectives of children, parents and practitioners Emma Howarth1 | Theresa HM Moore2,3  | Nicky Stanley4  | Harriet L. MacMillan5 | Gene Feder6,3  | Alison Shaw2 1National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Care (CLAHRC) East of England, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK 2Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 3NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Care (CLAHRC) West, Whitefriars, UK 4School of Social Work, Care and Community, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK 5Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada 6Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2018 The Authors. Health and Social Care in the Community Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Emma Howarth and Theresa Moore wish to be acknowledged as joint first authors. Correspondence Theresa Moore, NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Care (CLAHRC) West, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol BS1 2NT, UK. Email: theresa.moore@bristol.ac.uk and Emma Howarth, National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Care (CLAHRC) East of England, Cambridge Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, UK Email: emma.howarth@medschl.cam.ac.uk Funding information This project (11/3007/01) was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Public Health Research Programme. Gene Feder is supported by the UK Higher Education Funding Council. Emma Howarth is supported by National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership and Applied Health Care East of England (CLAHRC EoE). Harriet MacMillan is supported by the Chedoke Health Chair in Child Psychiatry. Theresa Moore is supported by National Institute of Health Research Collaboration for Leadership and Applied Health Care West (CLAHRC Abstract Children who grow up in homes affected by domestic violence and abuse (DVA) are at risk of poor outcomes across the lifespan, yet there is limited evidence on the ac- ceptability and effectiveness of interventions for them. A recent review of child‐fo- cused interventions highlighted a gap in understanding the factors influencing the willingness of parents and children to engage with these programmes. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence on the experiences of receiving and deliv- ering interventions with the aim of identifying factors at different levels of the social– ecological context that may influence parent and child readiness to take up interventions. We searched literature till April 2016 and found 12 reports of eight programmes. Two authors independently screened papers for inclusion, extracted data and identified the first‐ and second‐order constructs. The third‐order constructs were derived and fitted to the ecological framework to inform a picture of readiness to engage with interventions. Three key findings emerged from this review: (a) parent and child readiness is influenced by a complex interplay of individual, relationship and organisational factors, highlighting that individual readiness to take up child‐focussed interventions must be viewed in an ecological context; (b) the specific process through which women become ready to engage in or facilitate child‐focussed interventions may differ from that related to uptake of safety‐promoting behaviours and requires 2  |     HOWARTH eT Al. 1  | INTRODUC TION 1.1 | Scale and impact of children's exposure to domestic violence and abuse Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is a gendered problem repre- senting one of the greatest health risks for women and children (Feder & Potter, 2017; Hegarty et al., 2010; WHO, 2002). A United Kingdom prevalence study found that 15% of children had wit- nessed at least one form of DVA at some point during childhood and 3% of those have witnessed an incident in the last year (Radford et al., 2011). Similar prevalence rates are reported in US and Canadian population surveys (Afifi et al., 2014; Finkelhor, Turner, Shattuck, & Hamby, 2013). Exposure to DVA is associated with a significant risk to children’s physical and psychological safety and well‐being across the lifes- pan (Evans, Davies, & DiLillo, 2008; Howell, Miller, Lilly, & Graham‐ Bermann, 2013; Wolfe, Crooks, Lee, McIntyre‐Smith, & Jaffe, 2003) and an increased risk of experiencing other forms of maltreatment (Hamby, Finkelhor, Turner, & Ormrod, 2010). Childhood exposure to DVA is associated with an increase in internalising symptoms (e.g. anxiety, depression), externalising behaviours (e.g. aggression) and trauma symptoms (Evans et al., 2008; Kitzmann, Gaylord, Holt, & Kenny, 2003; Wolfe et al., 2003). It is also associated with negative outcomes in adulthood, including mental health problems and crim- inal behaviour, in addition to DVA victimisation and perpetration. There is considerable evidence to suggest that negative outcomes in adulthood are mediated by adjustment difficulties, particularly be- haviour problems that develop during childhood, including adoles- cence (Cui, Durtschi, Donnellan, Lorenz, & Conger, 2010; Fergusson & Horwood, 1998; Lussier, Farrington, & Moffitt, 2009; Russell, Springer, & Greenfield, 2010). It is therefore critical to offer effec- tive interventions in childhood to ameliorate the risk of negative out- comes in childhood, adolescence and adulthood. 1.2 | Interventions for children exposed to DVA Interventions designed to prevent or reduce mental health difficul- ties following children’s exposure to DVA were developed (British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, 2013; Howarth et al., 2015; Rizo, Macy, Ermentrout, & Johns, 2011). However, evidence of their effectiveness and acceptability is limited. Our recent mixed method evidence synthesis identified evidence gaps, highlighting the need for better quality evaluative studies. One such gap was the limited consideration of psychological readiness of chil- dren and parents to engage in child‐focussed interventions and how this may impact on the acceptability of interventions and treatment outcomes (Howarth et al., 2015). Many interventions that explicitly aim to enhance outcomes for children exposed to DVA require participation of both the victimised parent and child (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016; Katz, 2015). Even where parents’ direct involvement is not required, it is often incumbent upon parents to facilitate their children’s access to interventions and to engage with the questions and challeng- ing behaviour that may result from children’s increased awareness West) at University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust. Ali Shaw is funded by NIHR grants. parents to be aware of the impact of DVA on children and to focus on children’s needs; (c) there are distinct but interlinked processes through which parents and chil- dren reach a point of readiness to engage in an interventions aimed at improving child outcomes. We discuss the implications of these findings for both practice and research. K E Y W O R D S children, domestic violence, ecological framework, intervention, qualitative synthesis, readiness What is known about this topic • Little evidence exists on readiness of parents and chil- dren affected by DVA to take up “child‐focussed” interventions. • Studies show practitioner, organisational and program‐ related factors can affect family engagement in child‐ oriented programmes. • Viewing readiness through an ecological perspective can elucidate multilevel influences that affect willing- ness to participate in an intervention. What this paper adds • An ecological framework is helpful for understanding the complex interplay of individual, relational, situa- tional and organisational factors that influence parent and child readiness. • Distinct but interlinked processes emerge around their readiness to engage. • A range of modifiable factors can be addressed to in- crease parent and child readiness; efforts to enhance readiness must extend beyond a focus on individual factors.      |  3HOWARTH eT Al. of abuse and attempts to process their experiences (Humphreys, Mullender, Thiara, & Skamballis, 2006). Offering interventions to the children of parents who are not fully engaged in their child’s therapeutic journey may run the risk of alienating parents from supportive services altogether. It is potentially unethical to with- hold services from a child who could benefit simply because a parent is unwilling to support engagement. Indeed, a UK study em- phasised the importance of enabling children to access interven- tions independently of their parent (Itzin, Taket, & Barter‐Godfrey, 2010). Similarly, encouraging a child to participate in an interven- tion before they are suitably ready could be extremely detrimental to their adjustment. With this in mind, understanding readiness as a potential modifier of willingness to engage in any intervention and as a determinant of children’s and parents’ preferences for different types of interventions (at different stages of readiness) is important to enhance the understanding of which options are appropriate for children and parents at different points in the re- covery process. 1.3 | Readiness to engage in DVA interventions The term readiness in relation to therapeutic interventions refers to a person’s willingness to change their behaviour and/or engage in an intervention. However, where DVA is concerned, another party is responsible for the problem behaviour (Prochaska et al., 1994). Thus, the term readiness is often used in relation to the abused party’s will- ingness to take steps to reduce an exposure to DVA or to enhance well‐being, regardless of the actual outcomes (Cluss et al., 2006). Several process models have been developed to elucidate the factors that may facilitate or inhibit change for women experienc- ing DVA. Commonly, these models conceptualise readiness as a process rather than a dichotomous state and acknowledge that different types of intervention may be required at different points along a help‐seeking and recovery trajectory. This is supported by women’s accounts of the type of support that is valued, which may differ according to readiness (Feder, Hutson, Ramsay, & Taket, 2006). The development of DVA interventions using the transtheoret- ical model (TTM) of behaviour change (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1992) has been proposed, adapting the model to reflect the read- iness of women affected by DVA (Frasier, Slatt, Kowlowitz, & Glowa, 2001; Haggerty & Goodman, 2003; Hindmarsh, Knowlden, McMurchie, Schofield, & Hegarty, 1998; Zink, Elder, Jacobson, & Klostermann, 2004). Despite adaptations positioning women at the centre of the intervention (Hegarty, O’Doherty, Gunn, Pierce, & Taft, 2008), criticisms persist about the use of the TTM with DVA that TTM considers the behaviour of only one actor—the woman—and not the that of perpetrator. The autonomous readiness of the woman may not be the main precursor to change. The TTM model requires a target for change and for victims of DVA; it is not always clear what that should be. For example, leaving an abusive relationship is often perceived as the target, but this can lead to increased danger for women (Campbell, Webster, et al., 2003; Nicolaidis et al., 2003; Stanley, Miller, Richardson Foster, & Thomson, 2011). Finally, women affected by DVA may not proceed through each step of the TTM in order and may skip entire steps (Haggerty & Goodman, 2003). Cluss et al. (2006) propose instead a psychological readiness model which describes the dynamic interplay of internal and ex- ternal factors along a continuum of readiness to change, anchored at one end by maintaining the status quo and at the other with a desire for action. The model posits that the mobilisation of three in- ternal factors—awareness, self‐efficacy and perceived support—de- termines an individual’s position on the readiness continuum. Only when all three factors are aligned towards readiness, will an individ- ual be in a position for action. The model highlights that readiness is also moderated by external factors such as economic resources, number of children and the characteristics of the organisations and professionals delivering support, which is in line with evidence on mental health interventions (Ingoldsby, 2010). Given the range of factors that may shape readiness, an eco- logical framework—one that delineates the multilevel influences on a particular phenomenon—may be useful for conceptualising and organising the factors that may influence readiness to engage in DVA interventions. The ecological framework was first devel- oped by Bronfenbrenner to explain how the inherent qualities of a child and his or her environment interact to influence development (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Bronfenbrenner conceived of a person’s environment comprised of five different nested levels: the microsys- tem (immediate environment in which a child lives and interacts), the mesosystem (interaction between different microsystems), the exosystem (social structures that indirectly affect the child), the macrosystem (culture) and the chronosystem (environmental events and transitions over the life course). This model was later extended by Belsky to acknowledge the effect of individual developmental factors, such as personality, on a persons’ interaction with the mi- crosystem and other levels of the socio–ecological context (Belsky, 1980) Ecological models have been widely used in other fields, such as public health, mental health and responses to sexual violence (Golden & Earp, 2012; Stormshak et al., 2011). The framework has also been used as a heuristic tool to delineate factors that are pre- dictive of gender‐based violence at different levels of the social ecology (Heise, 2011; Hindmarsh et al., 1998). As of yet the eco- logical framework has not been used as a tool to identify and or- ganise the range of factors—from individual to system level—that may impact on the decisions of parents and children to engage with interventions designed to improve child outcomes following expo- sure to DVA. 1.4 | Current study This paper draws on a systematic review and synthesis of quali- tative evidence on child, parent and practitioner experiences of receiving and delivering interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of identifying factors at various levels of the social–ecological context that contribute to readiness to engage 4  |     HOWARTH eT Al. T A B L E 1   Su m m ar y of s tu dy d et ai ls Pr og ra m m e St ud y ID Co un tr y R es po nd en ts In te rv en ti on D el iv er ed t o Se tt in g Pr og ra m m e Ch ar ac te ris tic s of c hi ld re n D at a co lle ct io n M et ho d of an al ys is 1 P ar is (1 99 9) , U SA C hi ld re n n = 1g n= 3b P ar en ts (b ot h) n =8 m , n =6 f P ra ct it io ne rs n= 14 G ro up p ar al le l ps yc ho ed uc a- ti on f or p ar en ts an d ch ild re n C hi ld re n, b ot h pa re nt s, p ar al le l se pa ra te s es si on s— so m e co nj oi nt pa re nt al a nd f am ili al se ss io ns . M al e re sp on de nt s w er e co ur t m an da te d U ni ve rs it y of Fl or id a ca m pu s R SV P (R es po ns ib le St ep s To w ar ds V io le nc e P re ve nt io n) P ro gr am m e an d B IP (B at te re rs in te rv en ti on pr og ra m m e) 7– 8 ye ar s n= 3 12 y ea rs n =1 Fo cu s gr ou ps C on st an t co m pa ri so n 2 Pe le d an d Ed le so n (1 99 2) , U SA C hi ld re n n= 30 P ar en ts (n =1 6m , n =5 f) P ra ct it io ne r n= 9 G ro up p ar al le l ps yc ho ed uc a- ti on f or p ar en ts an d ch ild re n C hi ld re n, m ot he rs . So m e fa th er s. P ar al le l s ep ar at e se ss io ns . S om e fa th er s at te nd ed a co ur t m an da te d pr og ra m m e fo r pe rp et ra to rs o f ab us e C om m un it y D V s er vi ce s P ar en ts D A P (D om es ti c ab us e pr oj ec t of M in ne ap ol is ) 4– 12 y ea rs n =3 0 In te rv ie w s an d ob se rv at io n N at ur al is ti c re se ar ch pa ra di gm in du ct iv e co nt en t an al ys is Pe le d (1 99 8) , U SA C hi ld re n n= 14 M ot he rs n= 12 A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e M ea n ag e 11 .3 (1 0– 13 y ea rs ) In te rv ie w s In du ct iv e co nt en t an al ys is . P he no m ‐e co lo gi - ca l i nq ui ry . N at ur al is ti c en qu ir y Pe le d an d Ed le so n (1 99 9) , U SA P ar en ts n= 6 4m n= 41 f A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e M ea n ag e 10 .4 y ea rs . (4 –1 8 ye ar s) St ru ct ur ed te le ph on e in te rv ie w In du ct iv e co nt en t an al ys is 3 H um ph re ys e t al . (2 0 06 ), U K M ot he rs n =4 5 A ct iv it ie s to im pr ov e m ot he r– ch ild co m m un ic at io n M ot he r & c hi ld (d ya ds ) R ef ug e “T al ki ng w it h m y M um ” C hi ld re n ag e 5– 16 y ea rs Fo cu s gr ou ps A ct io n re se ar ch H um ph re ys e t al . (2 01 1) , U K C hi ld re n n= 2 5 g n= 27 bM ot he rs n= 45 P ra ct it io ne rs (r ef ug e w or ke rs ) n= 15 A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A ct io n re se ar ch . G ro un de d re se ar ch t he or y 4 K ea rn ey a nd C us hi ng (2 01 2) , U SA M ot he rs n =5 P ra ct it io ne rs (t he ra pi st s) * G ro up ps yc ho ed uc a- ti on M ot he rs w it h ch ild re n at te nd in g th er ap y (c hi ld in te rv en ti on no t de sc ri be d) C om m un it y D V s er vi ce s M at er na l g ro up ps yc ho ed uc a- ti on f or c hi ld re n re ce iv in g th er ap y 5– 12 y ea rs In te rv ie w s N ot d es cr ib ed (C on tin ue s)      |  5HOWARTH eT Al. Pr og ra m m e St ud y ID Co un tr y R es po nd en ts In te rv en ti on D el iv er ed t o Se tt in g Pr og ra m m e Ch ar ac te ris tic s of c hi ld re n D at a co lle ct io n M et ho d of an al ys is 5 T ho m ps on (2 0 09 ), U SA P ra ct it io ne r (t he ra pi st /a ut ho r) n= 1 C hi ld p la y th er ap y C hi ld re n sm al l g ro up Sc ho ol P la y th er ap y 6– 7 ye ar s P ar ti ci pa nt ob se rv at io n Er ic ks on 's a na ly ti c in du ct io n. Li nk in g st at em en ts ab ou t th e da ta ba se d on ev id en ti ar y w ar ra nt T ho m ps on (2 01 1) , U SA A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e A s ab ov e 6 Ja rm an (2 01 4) , U K C hi ld re n n= 4b D ra m a th er ap y B oy s N ot s ta te d G ro up d ra m a th er ap y ba se d on e m bo di m en t, pr oj ec ti on a nd ro le (E PR ) m od el 7– 9 ye ar s In te rv ie w s an d ob se rv at io n T he m at ic a na ly si s 7 Er m en tr ou t et a l. (2 01 4) , U SA C hi ld re n n= 8 M ot he rs n =1 8 P ra ct it io ne rs n =7 G ro up s up po rt M ot he rs a nd c hi ld re n. P ar al le l s ep ar at e se ss io ns . M ot he rs w er e/ ha d be en in D V A r el at io ns hi ps an d w er e de fe nd an ts in c ri m in al ju st ic e sy st em C om m un it y M O V E M ot he rs O ve rc om in g V io le nc e th ro ug h Ed uc at io n an d Em po w er m en t. G ro up p ar en ti ng an d ps yc ho ed uc a- ti on N o da ta b ut ra ng e in cl ud ed ch ild re n bo th be lo w 7 y ea rs an d ov er 7 ye ar s of a ge In te rv ie w s an d fo cu s gr ou ps T he m at ic a na ly si s. C on st an t co m pa ri so n 8 C at er (2 01 4) , Sw ed en C hi ld re n n= 16 In di vi du al t al ki ng th er ap y C hi ld re n C om m un it y Tr ap pa n‐ m od el - le n (s ta ir ca se ) gu id ed t he ra py . G ui de lin es 4– 19 y ea rs In te rv ie w s T he m at ic a na ly si s. C on st an t co m pa ri so n N ot es . b : b oy s; f : f at he rs ; g : g ir ls ; m : m ot he rs . *N um be r no t st at ed . T A B L E 1   (C on ti nu ed ) 6  |     HOWARTH eT Al. T A B L E 2   Q ua lit y m ar ke rs o f e ac h pa pe r as m ea su re d w it h C A SP C A SP It em C at er (2 01 4) Ja rm an (2 01 4) Er m en tr ou t et a l. (2 01 4) H um ph re ys et a l. (2 0 06 ) H um ph re ys et a l. (2 01 1) Ke ar ne y an d Cu sh in g (2 01 2) Pa ris (1 99 9) Pe le d an d Ed le so n (1 99 2) Pe le d (1 99 8) Pe le d an d Ed le so n (1 99 9) Th om ps on (2 00 9) Th om ps on (2 01 1) To ta l n = “Y es ” 9 5 10 8 10 7 10 10 10 10 10 10 To ta l n = “N o” 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 To ta l n =“ C an 't te ll” 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 H ow v al ua bl e is t he re se ar ch t o th is m et a‐ sy n- th es is ? (K ey , u se fu l, m ar gi na l, no t re le va nt ) K ey U se fu l K ey K ey K ey U se fu l/ M ar gi na la U se fu l K ey K ey K ey U se fu l U se fu l 1 W as t he re a c le ar st at em en t of A IM S of t he re se ar ch ? Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 2 Is a q ua lit at iv e m et ho do l- og y ap pr op ri at e? Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 3 W as t he r es ea rc h de si gn ap pr op ri at e to a dd re ss t he ai m s of t he r es ea rc h? Ye s C an 't te ll Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 4 W as t he r ec ru it m en t st ra te gy a pp ro pr ia te t o th e ai m s of t he r es ea rc h? Ye s C an 't te ll Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 5 W as t he d at a co lle ct ed in a w ay t ha t ad dr es se s th e re se ar ch is su e? Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s C an 't te ll Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 6 H as t he r el at io ns hi p be tw ee n re se ar ch er a nd pa rt ic ip an ts b ee n ad eq ua te ly c on si de re d? C an 't te ll C an 't te ll Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s 7 H av e et hi ca l i ss ue s be en ta ke n in to c on si de ra ti on ? Ye s C an 't te ll Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye sb 8 W as t he d at a an al ys is su ff ic ie nt ly r ig or ou s? Ye s A de qu at e Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s 9 Is t he re a c le ar s ta te m en t of f in di ng s? Ye s Ye s Ye s N o Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s 10 H ow v al ua bl e is t he re se ar ch ?c Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s Ye s N ot es . a H ig hl y re le va nt t o ou r re vi ew b ut u nc er ta in q ua lit y be ca us e of la ck o f r ep or ti ng in p ap er . b R et ro sp ec ti ve a na ly si s. N o m en ti on o f f or m al e th ic al r ev ie w , b ut it is c le ar t ha t et hi ca l c on si de ra ti on s w er e ta ke n in to a cc ou nt d ur in g th e gr ou p th er ap y. c D id t he r es ea rc he rs d is cu ss t he c on tr ib ut io n of t he s tu dy t o ex is ti ng k no w le dg e or u nd er st an di ng , f or e xa m pl e, d o th ey c on si de r th e fi nd in gs in r el at io n to c ur re nt p ra ct ic e or p ol ic y or r el ev an t re se ar ch ‐ ba se d lit er at ur e? D o th ey id en ti fy n ew a re as w he re r es ea rc h is n ec es sa ry ? H av e th e re se ar ch er s di sc us se d w he th er o r ho w t he f in di ng s ca n be t ra ns fe rr ed t o ot he r po pu la ti on s or c on si de re d ot he r w ay s th e re se ar ch m ay b e us ed ? Is t he r es ea rc h us ef ul t o th is s yn th es is ?      |  7HOWARTH eT Al. with child‐focussed DVA interventions. The overarching aim of this review was to improve the understanding of how uptake can be enhanced in future interventions through targeting modifiable factors that influence parent and child readiness. We sought to an- swer the following questions: (a) what are the individual, relational and organisational factors that influence parents and children’s readiness to engage with child‐focussed DVA interventions? (b) How does readiness of a parent and child interact to influence willingness of both parties to participate in an intervention? 2  | METHOD During an evidence synthesis, the “IMPROVE” review, examining the effectiveness, cost‐effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA (Howarth et al., 2016), we reviewed qualitative literature on the perspectives of children, parents and providers about interventions. We report on a synthesis of this quali- tative evidence using an interpretive perspective in which we identi- fied constructs in the original papers, compared these across studies and generated new overarching constructs that accounted for and further elaborated all those in the included papers. Adding the syn- thesis team’s interpretation, we wrote a synthesis of these overarch- ing constructs that conveyed readiness to engage with interventions shaped by an ecological perspective (see protocol Moore, Howarth, Feder, & Heawood, 2013). 2.1 | Search methods We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO and EMBASE on OVIDSP; CINAHL on EBSCO; the Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library; the Science Citation Index; Social Science Citation Index on Web of Science; the Applied Social Science and Abstracts Index (ASSIA); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); Social Services Abstracts; Sociological Abstracts on ProQuest; Social Care Online; the WHO trials portal and clinical trials.gov from inception to April 2016. We did not limit the search by study design, date or language. Letters, editorials and re- cords with no abstract were excluded. We used MeSH and text word terms for combined with terms for and combined these with text word terms for . Search details are listed in the supplementary material. 2.2 | Study selection, appraisal and data extraction Two reviewers (TM, EH or AS) independently screened titles, ab- stracts and full‐text papers against the inclusion criteria. Any dis- crepancies between reviewers were resolved though discussion with recourse to a third reviewer GF. Following previous qualitative syntheses (Campbell, Pound, et al., 2003a; Malpass et al., 2009), we applied two initial screening criteria/questions to each paper to de- termine: Is this qualitative research? And is this paper relevant to the synthesis? Included papers needed to be peer reviewed and to report qualitative data from children or parents who had experienced an intervention or practitioners who had provided an intervention for children exposed to DVA. We also included author interpretations derived from such qualitative data. We extracted the study details from each paper (Table 1 and see Supporting Information Table S1. We then extracted verbatim quotes from children, parents or practitioners (including field notes from observations) regarding their experiences of interventions (first‐order constructs) and authors’ interpretations of the quali- tative data from the study participants (second‐order constructs). Each included paper was independently appraised by two reviewers using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist for quali- tative research (CASP, 2010). 2.3 | Synthesis process Having identified the first‐ and second‐order constructs, we com- pared these across the papers, examining them for convergence and divergence in language and meaning, in order to generate overarching third‐order constructs (interpretations of the synthesis team) that en- compassed and further elaborated all constructs in the original papers. All the first‐ and second‐order constructs were entered into a table for each paper within each respondent group (child, parent and practitioners). The first‐ and second‐order constructs were then compared across papers. This process enabled us to develop a table of overarching third‐order constructs for each participant group (see Supporting Information Table S2). Finally, we synthesised the third‐order constructs for each par- ticipant group, before integrating the data for all participant groups relevant to each third‐order construct. During this process, we related the synthesis of the third‐order constructs to three levels of the ecological framework (personal, interpersonal and context), keeping track of the participant group (child, parent and practitioner) from which the data were derived (Tables 3‒6). 3  | RESULTS 3.1 | Search We identified 10,783 references (Figure 1). Reading titles and ab- stracts produced 124 potentially relevant references, for which we obtained full‐text copies. We excluded 73 papers that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the 51 remaining papers, 39 were excluded as they did not report participants’ experience of an intervention. Our final sample comprised 12 papers reporting on eight interven- tions (Table 1 see Supporting Information Table S1). 3.2 | Quality of the papers Eight of the 12 papers were consistently rated as good quality by the reviewers, each scoring 10 on the CASP checklist (See Table 2) (Ermentrout, Rizo, & Macy, 2014; Humphreys, Thiara, & Skamballis, 8  |     HOWARTH eT Al. TA B L E 3  The third‐order constructs for the individual level of the ecological model: Personal factors shaping children's readiness to engage. Source material from all papers and high quality papers Respondent Third‐order constructs All papers High‐“quality” papers Initiation of engagement Children Self‐motivation, recognition of own needs Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Understanding and acknowledgement of DVA Children might not understand that DVA is the root cause of their involvement with an intervention Children Adjustment to the “new reality” in their lives Peled (1998) Peled (1998) Children Acknowledging DVA had been a part of their lives Peled (1998) Jarman (2014) Peled (1998) Children DVA, and engagement with a DVA‐focused inter- vention, may be of marginal concern to children who may be engaged with other normal devel- opmental milestones or other immediate family traumas Peled (1998) Thompson (2011) Peled (1998) Thompson (2011) Children Learning the violence vocabulary Paris (1999) Peled and Edleson (1992) Paris (1999) Peled and Edleson (1992) Children Defining or labelling abuse Peled and Edleson (1992) Paris (1999) Peled (1998) Peled and Edleson (1992) Paris (1999) Peled (1998) Children Attribution of responsibility for DVA Peled (1998) Peled and Edleson (1992) Jarman (2014) Peled (1998) Peled and Edleson (1992) Children Recognising equality of gender roles Jarman (2014) Recognising the effect of DVA on mothers and other children and having empathy Children Empathy for mother's situation Peled (1998) Peled (1998) Children Recognising their mother's strength Jarman (2014) Children Development of empathy Thompson (2011) Thompson (2011) Breaking the secret Children Helping mothers and other children [altruism as motivation for joining in] Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011) Breaking the secret was difficult for children/children did not want to talk about the past or their fathers. Children felt their situation to be shameful/the presence of nonabusive parent (mother) helped children with the activities Children Not wanting to talk about the past/violence Not wanting to talk about their fathers Humphreys et al. (2011) Peled (1998) Jarman (2013) Cater (2014) Humphreys et al. (2011) Peled (1998) Cater (2014) Children Hesitancy to share what has happened Thompson (2009) Paris (1999) Thompson (2009) Paris (1999) Children Readiness to talk Paris (1999) Peled and Edleson (1992) Thompson (2011) Thompson (2009) Paris (1999) Peled and Edleson (1992) Thompson (2011) Thompson (2009) Children “I am not alone”: Beneficial; release of stress par- ticularly beneficial to children who have not spo- ken of it before Reducing shame and guilt Peled and Edleson (1992) Thompson (2011) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Peled and Edleson (1992) Thompson (2011) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Children Child perception of benefits Humphreys et al. (2011) Paris (1999) Jarman (2014) Humphreys et al. (2011) Paris (1999) Jarman (2014) (Continues)      |  9HOWARTH eT Al. 2011; Paris, 1999; Peled, 1998; Peled & Edleson, 1999, 1992; Thompson, 2009, 2011). Three scored between 7 and 9, (Cater, 2014; Humphreys et al., 2006; Kearney & Cushing, 2012) suggesting all were good or ac- ceptable quality. One scored 5 (Jarman, 2014). A lack of space to report methods, rather than a lack of research quality, seemed to be the rea- son for lower quality scores. A sensitivity analysis indicated that the removal of the four “weaker” papers did not change the main synthesis findings. 3.3 | Participants and intervention types Detailed descriptions of the participants and interventions can be found in Table 1 (see Supporting Information Table S1). Seven papers reported children’s views, seven parents’ views and eight practitioners’ views. Some papers reporting parents’ views in- cluded the views of abusive parents. In the included studies, all nonabusing parents were mothers and all abusing parents were fathers. The interventions included psychoeducation programmes, individual counselling, play therapy, drama therapy and guided self‐ help. The children in the programmes were mostly aged between 4 and 12 years (Jarman, 2014; Kearney & Cushing, 2012; Paris, 1999; Peled, 1998; Peled & Edleson, 1992; Thompson, 2009, 2011) with two studies including children aged up to 16 years (Humphreys et al., 2006, 2011) or 19 years (Cater, 2014). In one study, mothers who were survivors of DVA were also involved with the criminal justice system (Ermentrout et al., 2014). 3.4 | Synthesis Results from the full synthesis identified constructs spanning the whole process of engaging with and receiving an intervention (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016). Here, shaped by an ecological per- spective, we consider factors which influence readiness to engage in an intervention at three levels: individual, interpersonal and con- textual, from the viewpoint of children, parents and practitioners. 3.5 | Individual factors shaping readiness to engage 3.5.1 | Children's personal readiness to engage All papers reporting the experiences of children highlighted the im- portance of personal readiness for child engagement with interven- tions. The key dimensions were understanding and acknowledging DVA and willingness to break the secret of abuse. Understanding and acknowledging DVA was an important part of children’s readiness to take up an intervention. Children may not identify that DVA is happening in their lives (Jarman, 2014; Peled, 1998), and mothers’ responses to abusive situations—for example, moving to a refuge or shelter—may not always be accompanied by a change in children’s understanding and awareness of DVA (Peled, 1998). Even if they recognise that DVA is present in their lives, chil- dren may not understand the impact on their mothers or be able to empathise with her. Moreover, children may not perceive the abuse to be the most important problem in their lives; other more imme- diate issues may occupy their attention, including “feelings of being rejected by their fathers” and “normal developmental challenges” (p. 420) (Peled, 1998). The relative “marginality” of DVA among the var- ious challenges faced by a child may hinder their readiness to engage with an intervention. Children’s initial willingness to engage will sometimes be moti- vated by altruism and empathy. An appreciation of their mothers’ strength and a desire to support them can be the key features of children’s motivation to attend an intervention (Jarman, 2014); in the studies we examined, children often expressed a desire to help their mothers or other children in the future, as reasons for start- ing an intervention (Humphreys et al., 2011). Conversely, some chil- dren seemed to have little voice in the decision to participate in an Respondent Third‐order constructs All papers High‐“quality” papers Children Building trust between practitioner and child, helps break the secret Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Therapeutic relationship can assist engagement Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Children must be motivated if intervention is to work Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Readiness to “Break the secret” Children Differential readiness between parents and chil- dren as a barrier to uptake Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Mothers do not understand child needs, older children use own initiative to seek help Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Initiation driven by adult assumption of child needs Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Children's participation may be aided by involving them in decision to take up a programme Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Child must be motivated if participation is to work Cater (2014) Cater (2014) TA B L E 3   (Continued) 10  |     HOWARTH eT Al. intervention, the decision being made by a parent or other related adult (Cater, 2014).This can make children’s engagement problematic if they are not personally motivated to engage and feel that their needs have been assumed by adults (Cater, 2014). At the start of an intervention programme, children may have limited ability to articulate their experiences of abuse. Through participation, they learn the language of abuse and how to talk about it as well as to develop the understanding that abuse is not acceptable or normal (Paris, 1999; Peled, 1998). As part of this pro- cess, children may begin to attribute responsibility for the abuse to the perpetrator and to understand that their father is to blame (Jarman, 2014). Stereotypical gender roles may also be addressed, with children understanding that violence is not an acceptable nor inevitable part of the male role (Jarman, 2014). Some need support to acknowledge that their fathers are responsible and to recog- nise the impact of DVA on their mother, themselves and any other children in the family. Through engaging in interventions, children gradually learn to identify types of abuse, which helps them to talk about, and process, their experiences (Paris, 1999; Peled, 1998; Peled & Edleson, 1992). Building on a growing awareness of the nature of DVA, children have to reach a point where they are willing to “break the secret” of DVA as part of their readiness to fully engage with an intervention. Breaking the secret of DVA was consistently hard for children, whether they were personally motivated to attend an intervention or compelled to do so by a parent or professional (Cater, 2014; Ermentrout et al., 2014). They were often uncertain and hesitant about disclosing their experi- ences, as they felt their experiences to be shameful. In some instances, children were “coached” by a parent not to talk about the abuse, owing to parents’ fear of the consequences of children’s disclosure, thus limit- ing their meaningful engagement. (Ermentrout et al., 2014). Especially in the early stages of an intervention, children often did not want to talk about the past or their abusive parent (Cater, 2014; Humphreys et al., 2011). However, the presence of the non- abusive parent helped children’s engagement, enabling them to understand the value of therapeutic activities and giving them “per- mission” to talk (Humphreys et al., 2011). Yet, children typically re- quired time before they felt safe to share (Humphreys et al., 2011; Paris, 1999; Peled & Edleson, 1992; Thompson, 2009, 2011), often avoiding distressing topics such as their fathers or stepfathers during the early sessions of the intervention (Jarman, 2014). Early engagement requires sensitive nurturing by those deliver- ing interventions to encourage readiness to share; indeed, this in and of itself may be an important benefit of participation for children. Once children had begun to share the secret, talking about it was usually experienced as valuable and could bring a beneficial release of stress, particularly for children who had not spoken of it before. Sharing helped children to appreciate that they were not alone, and this in turn helped alleviate their sense of shame and guilt (Peled & Edleson, 1992; Thompson, 2011). 3.5.2 | Parents’ personal readiness to engage For parents, readiness appears to be determined by the interplay of four internal factors: recognition of involvement in an abusive re- lationship, recognition of potential impact of DVA on children, the TA B L E 4  The third‐order constructs for the individual level of the ecological model: Personal factors shaping readiness to engage of parents and practitioners. Source material from all papers and high‐quality papers Third‐order constructs All papers High‐“quality” papers Understanding and acknowledgement of DVA Parents Readiness of parents (fathers) to name and acknowledge DVA Peled and Edleson (1999) Peled and Edleson (1999) Parents Acknowledgement of negative impact of DVA on child Humphreys et al. (2011) Kearney and Cushing (2012) Peled and Edleson (1999) Humphreys et al. (2011) Peled and Edleson (1999) Able to consider needs of their children Parents Parents able to see beyond own needs to those of their child Humphreys et al. (2011) Kearney and Cushing (2012) Peled and Edleson (1999) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Humphreys et al. (2011) Peled and Edleson (1999) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Parents Mothers’ willingness to talk to their children about the past Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011) Parents may fear children's disclosures Practitioners Parents fear of children disclosing information Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Practitioners Parents may coach children not to talk Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Differential readiness between parents and children as a barrier to uptake Parents Mismatch in readiness; children are ready but mothers are not Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011)      |  11HOWARTH eT Al. TA B L E 5  The third‐order constructs for the interpersonal level of the ecological model: Relational factors shaping readiness to engage (all respondents). Source material from all papers and high quality papers Respondents Third‐order constructs All papers High‐“quality” papers The role of supportive relationships with practitioners in priming readiness to engage Practitioners Facilitation of intervention (timing and readiness of moth- ers) by practitioners Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011) Parents Mothers feel that children are in a safe and confidential intervention/space/setting Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Priming work might be needed Practitioners Priming of mothers before introducing the intervention may be worthwhile. Priming or preparatory work with parents on the impact of DVA on their child. Priming children in advance of the intervention might be worthwhile Humphreys et al. (2006) Peled and Edleson (1992) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Peled and Edleson (1992) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Parents Interference by coparents may prevent child attending Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Interpersonal trust between recipients Practitioners/ children Peer bonding gives support and aids dialogue Paris (1999) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Thompson (2009) Thompson (2011) Paris (1999) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Thompson (2009) Thompson (2011) Interpersonal trust between recipients and providers of interventions Practitioners Developing a shared understanding between the parent and child of their situations Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011) Parents “I am not alone”/learning from each other (comes through process of being in a group) Kearney and Cushing (2012) Children Hesitancy to share what has happened. Readiness to talk. Developing trust in the group. Children need time to develop trust in the group Peled and Edleson (1992) Paris (1999) Thompson (2009) Thompson (2011) Cater (2014) Jarman (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Peled and Edleson (1992) Paris (1999) Thompson (2009) Thompson (2011) Cater (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Children Being specifically asked (by counsellor) about violence was a key to opening up Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Child must trust the counsellor to participate Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Children Safe uninvolved adult was preferred Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Power in child adult relationship may constrain child participation Parents Parents (main carer) may prevent children attending inter- vention (Differential readiness) Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Parents Children may opt not to engage even if they are attending (in defiance of adult's wishes) Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Practitioner Interference by co‐parents may prevent child attending (Differential readiness) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Rules of the group helped children develop trust Children Developing group norms and rules, for example, confidentiality “Ok not to talk” feeling supported in the group and not com- pelled to talk Peled and Edleson (1992) Peled and Edleson (1992) 12  |     HOWARTH eT Al. ability or willingness to see beyond their own needs to those of their children and to overcome their fear of what children might disclose. Where fathers were involved in decisions about child engagement, this related to interventions aimed at whole families. Those parents who doubted that an intervention was appropriate for their chil- dren were often those who also denied the abusive nature of their relationship: I wasn’t too involved with it. But I heard about how vio‐ lence affects children. They never had a problem like that. Their mom is good with them. There was never violence at home. I went to DAP because there was some problems with my marriage. (p. 520 Father) (Peled & Edleson, 1999) Where parents felt that their children had no need of an in- tervention, the family was less likely to engage. Parents who knew that their children had witnessed abuse were more likely to accept that an intervention might be desirable. Parents were unlikely to see the worth of an intervention if they believed that their children had no knowledge of the abuse, were too young to understand, did not directly witness it or perceived that DVA was insufficiently severe to place the children at risk of psychological harm. Parents tended to “grade” abuse their children had been exposed to and if they deemed it to be less severe (e.g. verbal abuse), they were less likely to want their children to engage in an intervention (Peled & Edleson, 1999). To be ready to engage in an intervention, parents needed to acknowledge that any form of ex- posure could have a detrimental impact on children’s adjustment (Peled & Edleson, 1999). Although, for interventions involving groups of children, parents expressed fears about bringing their children into contact with others whom they perceived to have been exposed to more traumatic abuse (Peled & Edleson, 1999). Parents also needed to be ready to look beyond their own needs to those of their children (Ermentrout et al., 2014; Humphreys et al., 2011; Kearney & Cushing, 2012; Peled & Edleson, 1999). Some ac- knowledged that they had been so absorbed in processing their own emotions and experiences that it had been difficult to devote time and emotion to offering or facilitating help for their children. In the words of one mother: I suppose if you’d have asked me eight months ago I might not have done it. Because I didn’t want to accept myself what was going on. (p. 177 Mother) (Humphreys et al., 2011) Moreover, as time elapses and their situation improves, parents may not see the need to access support for their children, particularly if TA B L E 6  The third‐order constructs for the contextual level of the ecological model: External factors shaping readiness to engage (all respondents). Source material from all papers and high quality papers Respondents Third‐order constructs All papers High “quality” papers Change in circumstances may require support Children Adjustment to the “new reality” in their lives Peled (1998) Thompson (2011) Peled (1998) Thompson (2011) Children Living in a refuge/shelter Peled (1998) Peled (1998) Shelter experience can provide stability as a base for change for families (mothers and children) Children Living in a refuge/shelter Peled (1998) Peled (1998) Practitioners Situational readiness: families must not be in crisis Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2006) Humphreys et al. (2011) For families living in the community Parents Overcoming practical barriers to attending Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Practitioners’ readiness to deliver therapeutic child‐focused interventions depended on their skills Practitioners Practitioners’ skills of working with women and children Humphreys et al. (2011) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Humphreys et al. (2011) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Children Ability of practitioner to adapt to the child's state of mind in each session Cater (2014) Cater (2014) Intervention setting is important Parents Mothers feel that children are in a safe and confidential intervention/space/setting Ermentrout et al. (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Flexibility/adaptability of the intervention itself Practitioners & Children Adaptability of the intervention/flexibility of the practitioner helped practitioners to deliver it. And helped children engage Ermentrout et al. (2014) Cater (2014) Ermentrout et al. (2014) Cater (2014) Organisational readiness to support engagement with and delivery of interventions Practitioners Organisational readiness Humphreys et al. (2011) Humphreys et al. (2011)      |  13HOWARTH eT Al. children do not seem to be showing overt difficulties (Peled & Edleson, 1999). Practitioners felt parents who were concerned about the effects of DVA on their children and who had noticed a need in their children were most motivated to seek help. Conversely, there were parents who did not wish to engage as the “preferred way to deal with the past was not to discuss it. Some saw it as a means of being protective of either themselves or their children” (p. 177) (Humphreys et al., 2011). As highlighted by practitioners, other parents hindered their children from attending as they were fearful of what children might reveal and concerned about the potential consequences of the children dis- closing the abuse. This was true of both the abusive and nonabusive parent. There is this factor which is very real, which is the dads are worrying about what their children are coming here and saying. So I do think there’s some sabotage with the dads about the children participating and maybe even some fear on the moms’ part, “What will the kids say? What will they tell?” (p. 663) (Ermentrout et al., 2014) 3.5.3 | Differential readiness between parents and children as a barrier to uptake In some instances, there may be a mismatch between parents and children with respect to the degree of readiness to engage in F I G U R E 1  Flow of studies through the review 14  |     HOWARTH eT Al. a child‐focussed intervention; one party may be ready to engage while the other may not, which may hinder family participation (Cater, 2014). One mother, while reluctant to discuss the effect of DVA (Humphreys et al., 2011), acknowledged that her daughters had been ready to talk about the abuse for some time, having already spoken about it to a special educational needs coordinator at their previous school. Supporting parents and children towards a similar point of readiness may therefore be a key in enhancing engagement with interventions. This is particularly important given that many of the interventions on offer are predicated on the involvement of both parents and children. 3.6 | Relational factors shaping readiness to engage Relational factors may impact readiness to engage in an interven- tion, particularly relationships between intervention providers and participants (whether parents or children) and between participants themselves (e.g. children in group interventions). 3.6.1 | The role of supportive relationships with practitioners in priming readiness to engage Adapting to a new living situation (such as a shelter or move to a new home) in the aftermath of parental separation may require ad- ditional support from staff to help parents and children adjust to the new reality of everyday life, before they are ready to engage in a therapeutic intervention. Practitioners acknowledged their own key role in building supportive relationships with children and mothers and assisting them to engage with a programme. They de- scribed undertaking “priming” work with parents and children to prepare them to engage with an intervention, often undertaken alongside the provision of more practical support. Providing par- ents with information about why the intervention might be needed and how the DVA may be impacting their child(ren), as well as infor- mation about the content and processes of the intervention itself, is likely to increase its acceptability to potential participants and enhance willingness to participate. (Humphreys et al., 2006; Peled & Edleson, 1992). 3.6.2 | Interpersonal trust between recipients and providers of interventions Children, parents and practitioners identified trust between those using and those delivering interventions as a crucial prerequisite for meaningful engagement. Trust between intervention providers and participants facilitates the process of sharing and aids participants’ readiness to talk, whether in the context of a group intervention or individual counselling (Cater, 2014; Jarman, 2014).Disclosure to a “safe” adult who is not a member of the child’s family or a friend seems to be a key in helping children to discuss the abuse (Cater, 2014). Mothers also need to trust that their children, in attending an intervention, are in a safe and confidential space with trustworthy providers (Ermentrout et al., 2014). For group‐based interventions, children also needed to build suf- ficient trust in other children to share their experiences (Paris, 1999; Peled & Edleson, 1992; Thompson, 2009, 2011). In this context, peer bonding can be a key for facilitating peer‐to‐peer support and for aiding dialogue between them (Ermentrout et al., 2014). In an inter- vention aimed at mothers and children, the process of hearing each other’s experiences was an important part of developing a shared understanding of how the abuse was impacting different members of the family (Humphreys et al., 2011). It takes time for children and parents to trust providers of inter- ventions before they disclose experiences and feelings (Ermentrout et al., 2014; Thompson, 2011). Children need time to build this trust, and this process may be undermined if children are not actively in- volved in making the decision to participate and as a consequence are unwilling to engage in communication with intervention pro- viders (Cater, 2014). Group rules initiated by intervention providers were important for facilitating trust through the creation of a “safe space” (Humphreys et al., 2006). These included rules about confi- dentiality: “whatever was said in the group, stays in the group” (p. 338) (Peled & Edleson, 1992). 3.7 | Contextual factors shaping readiness to engage External factors that may impact initial readiness to engage in in- terventions are aligned with the contextual level of the ecological model. Wider contextual factors, including the living situation of families impacted by DVA, may directly shape their readiness to engage, whereas organisational factors may indirectly influence readiness through practitioner readiness to deliver interventions (Figure 2). 3.7.1 | Change in living situations and readiness Children‐accessing interventions following DVA have often expe- rienced a significant change in their physical and material world as their family adjusts to a new reality. “The move implied a change of neighbourhoods, school, and general social environment” (p. 411) (Peled, 1998). Change goes together with a process of adaptation for children. For example, children who have moved to a shelter have to learn to adapt quickly to their new surroundings. (Peled, 1998). These contexts form the backdrop for children attending an intervention, and changes in their environment may be the key to their preparedness to participate. An important contextual as- pect of parental readiness had the stability and time to engage with an intervention (Humphreys et al., 2006, 2011). Both in shel- ter settings and in the community, parents (particularly mothers) need to move towards a degree of stability in their home lives to have not only the emotional capacity but also the practical capac- ity to engage (Ermentrout et al., 2014; Humphreys et al., 2011). Practitioners were clear that a starting point for families’ safe and meaningful engagement with an intervention was a “situation of stability,” (p. 176) (Humphreys et al., 2011) which meant being      |  15HOWARTH eT Al. beyond the crisis stage, separated from the perpetrator and being over the initial trauma of separation. 3.7.2 | Practitioners’ readiness to deliver therapeutic child‐focused interventions To be willing to take up an intervention Mothers needed to have a degree of confidence in the setting and provider (Ermentrout et al., 2014). Practitioners delivering interventions needed to be ready to do so, which in turn was dependent on their personal characteris- tics, training, understanding of DVA and its impact and distinct from the skills required to deliver practical support. Practitioners need skills in working with women and children (Ermentrout et al., 2014; Humphreys et al., 2011) and the flexibility to be able to adapt an intervention to the specific needs of participants (Cater, 2014), for example, by responding to a child’s state of mind in each session of an intervention and tailoring the material and communication appro- priately. Ability to help women engage with an intervention could be limited by workers’ lack of understanding of mothers’ trauma, or of why the mothers were not yet able to prioritise their children’s needs (Humphreys et al., 2011). 3.7.3 | Organisational readiness to support engagement with and delivery of interventions The theme of organisational readiness emerged from papers re- porting an intervention delivered by refuge or shelter workers (Humphreys et al., 2006, 2011). From the perspective of practition- ers, organisations already providing similar support (e.g. counselling) were seen as more ready and as having a better foundation upon F I G U R E 2  Personal, interpersonal and contextual themes as an ecological model, for parents, children and practitioners engaged in interventions for children exposed to domestic violence and abuse 16  |     HOWARTH eT Al. which to deliver child‐focussed interventions. Organisations “in cri- sis” and facing challenges such as staff shortages were not consid- ered ready to deliver interventions (Humphreys et al., 2011). Time pressures as well as lack of an appropriate skills base, both of which may be dictated by the organisational climate, have the potential to impede practitioner readiness to deliver interventions. The good will, enthusiasm, skills and resourcefulness of the workers, along with organisational support and training, were seen as key for or- ganisational readiness, as was management “buy in” to the ethos of the intervention (Humphreys et al., 2011). 4  | DISCUSSION Previous research has focused mainly on the readiness of women who have experienced DVA to take up woman‐focussed interven- tions, with little attention to the process through which children reach a point of readiness to engage with interventions, or indeed the process through which parents become ready to support their children’s recovery. The purpose of this review was to identify fac- tors at various levels of the social–ecological context that contrib- ute to readiness to engage with child‐focussed DVA interventions, with the aim of improving understanding of how to enhance readi- ness, along with the types of interventions that may be acceptable to parents and children at different points along the readiness trajectory. 4.1 | Parents’ readiness to engage with child‐ focussed interventions In line with the psychological readiness model (Cluss et al., 2006), our results emphasise the role of parental awareness of having ex- perienced abuse from an intimate partner as a key internal factor that determines readiness. Our results extend the model by high- lighting the particular importance of parents’ awareness of the im- pact of DVA on their children as an influence on readiness to engage in child‐focussed interventions, which appears to be mediated by a parent’s ability to see beyond their own needs, enabling them to focus on those of their child/ren. Women who have unresolved needs of their own may require a period of adult‐focussed support in order to see beyond their own needs to support their children to engage in therapeutic interven- tions. It is well documented that untreated parental mental health problems are associated with less optimal therapeutic progress and poorer outcomes among youth receiving mental health treat- ment (Beauchaine, Webster‐Stratton, & Reid, 2005; Pilowsky et al., 2008; Rishel et al., 2006). Visser et al., (2015) found that parent psychopathology in the context of DVA was indirectly linked to child adjustment through parent availability. They posit that that the emotional unavailability of traumatised parents may render it more difficult for them to adopt the perspective of their children, which they suggest is a key facilitator of benefit from trauma‐fo- cussed interventions. Social support, particularly from specialist DVA workers, emerged as a key facilitator of parental readiness to engage in a child‐focussed intervention, both through the mobilisation of practi- cal assistance and help to recognise the impact of DVA on children’s adjustment. Practitioners could play a role in helping parents under- stand how abuse occurring between caregivers, even if seemingly less severe and not directly witnessed, could have a detrimental impact on children, thus highlighting the need for a child‐focussed intervention. A large literature supports the critical influence of the therapeutic alliance on family engagement and retention (Elvins & Green, 2008). Families who experience a positive bond with the pro- vider and a collaborative relationship for developing tasks and goals of treatment are more likely to remain engaged (Thompson, Bender, Lantry, & Flynn, 2007). Specialist practitioners played a role in “priming” parents and children prior to their enrolment in an intervention, allowing them to address any practical barriers hindering attendance and to prepare parents and children in terms of what to expect. The function of this preparatory work is underscored by a review of approaches to fam- ily engagement and retention in child mental health programmes, which found improved engagement where providers explicitly ad- dressed families’ practical (e.g. schedules, transportation) and psy- chological (e.g. family members’ resistance, beliefs about treatment process) barriers as they entered treatment (Ingoldsby, 2010). Our findings suggest that DVA workers undertake this preparatory engagement on an informal basis, although there may be merit in formalising this work by drawing on evidence regarding effective strategies shown to enhance programme uptake (Ingoldsby, 2010; Nock & Ferriter, 2005; Staudt, 2003). This emphasis on engagement would need to include a psychoeducational component focussing on the impact of DVA on children to highlight the possible need for intervention in the first place. This element would be important for parents who believe that their children may not have been adversely affected. There is also the need to address parental anxieties about the repercussions of their children sharing information about the abuse they have experienced; our results indicate that this is a key psychological barrier to engagement. In seeking help to secure their own and their children’s physical safety, women report weighing the risk of ‘doing nothing’ against revealing abuse and risking the harm, abduction or removal of their children (Humphreys, Thiara, & Skamballis, 2011; Rhodes Cerulli, Dichter, & Barg, 2010; Rose et al., 2011). Our results suggest that these fears may continue as mothers seek help to support children’s psychological recovery. In preparing mothers and children to take part in therapeutic interventions, it is imperative that both parties are fully informed about the limits of confidentiality and practitioners’ safeguarding duties so as to avoid a rupture of the therapeutic relationship if new information is dis- closed and triggers a safeguarding response and to give mothers and children the opportunity to opt out of the intervention altogether. Addressing this issue directly may enable practitioners to reassure parents about the therapeutic benefits of children sharing their ex- periences in an attempt to minimise parental efforts to censor their children (McTavish et al., 2017). However, where there is concern      |  17HOWARTH eT Al. that the sharing of information in the context of a therapeutic inter- vention may increase risk to children’s safety, an intervention should not be offered. 4.2 | Children's readiness to engage in therapeutic interventions Priming work with children may also be necessary given that chil- dren who are coerced into participation may be unable to fully en- gage with the therapeutic processes that lead to positive change. Acknowledgement of DVA was a key dimension of children’s readi- ness to take up an intervention. However, this depends in part on willingness to “break the secret” of abuse and the ability to discuss experiences. Therefore, children who have been coerced to attend an intervention may not be ready to share and may actively with- draw from the therapeutic process in an attempt to maintain some control. A study of children’s spontaneous disclosures of exposure to abuse in a psychoeducational programme found that children who were more ready to actively engage with an intervention were more likely to share their experiences, and that children who spontaneously disclosed their experiences reported greater ben- efits. However, this study found that nearly half of participating children were not ready to disclose their experiences in a group setting (Graham‐Bermann, Kulkarni, & Kanukollu, 2011). Indeed, a number of studies included in this synthesis highlight that the ability to articulate experiences and the willingness to share them may be intervention outcomes in and of themselves (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016) and thus can be thought of as both a prod- uct of engagement and a precursor to benefit. It is perhaps un- realistic for children who have been chronically exposed to DVA to show clinically meaningful changes in well‐being and mental health outcomes following an intervention lasting for 8–12 weeks. Indeed “the group was a first and crucial step in a longer journey of healing” (p. 334) (Peled & Edleson, 1992). This implies that some children may benefit from repeated participation in group inter- ventions or a period of psychoeducation prior to engagement to gain maximum benefit. O’Doherty et al. (2014) argue that readiness for change should be measured as an intermediate outcome in trials of interventions for adult survivors of DVA, to explicate the causal mechanism through which an intervention may confer benefits or harms . Readiness for change could be used for stratification in randomisation (Ramsay et al., 2009) given that this characteristic along with others may have a bearing on both the acceptability and effectiveness of a partic- ular intervention. Our results suggest that this thinking should be extended to the evaluation of child‐focussed interventions. Not surprisingly, parental support was found to be a key in fa- cilitating children’s involvement in a therapeutic intervention. Encouraging a child to attend a programme may serve as implicit permission to share experiences with others (although not always as highlighted above), which as discussed above can facilitate more positive outcomes for children. Children identify their mothers as the person with whom they most often want to talk to about the abuse (Mullender et al., 2002), despite possible concerns that they may upset their parents (McGee, 2000; Mullender et al., 2002). Support from parents to engage in a therapeutic programme may signal to children that parents are emotionally available to have these conversations, while parents who do not actively facilitate their children’s participation may convey, implicitly or explicitly, that they are not willing to talk about children’s experiences of abuse. Meiser‐Stedman (2002) suggests that, for children to cope with trau- matic stress, they need to form a coherent memory of the traumatic event represented in a verbal format (Meiser‐Stedman, 2002). This is a key aim of most DVA interventions; however, parents are crit- ical in supporting this type of coping by communicating about the traumatic events with their child outside of the therapeutic context (Meiser‐Stedman, 2002). Where parents are supportive of participa- tion, but are reticent to support children’s sharing of experience, a longer period of priming work may be required. 4.3 | Parent and child readiness as overlapping but distinct processes Our results indicate that parent and child readiness are overlapping but distinct processes connected by parental ability and willingness to support engagement. Thus, a situation may arise whereby a child or young person is ready to take up an intervention, yet their par- ent is not ready to be involved or commit to assisting their child to attend. This is important to consider, given that mental health treat- ment studies show that initial attendance at an intervention is lowest when parents (rather than the adolescent or other family members) are unwilling to be involved in treatment (Santisteban, Suarez‐ Morales, Robbins, & Szapocznik, 2006). In the UK, there is consensus among professionals that children should be able to access interventions independently of their parents. This may be possible for an older adolescent or where another care- giver can support a child (Itzin et al., 2010); however, many of the in- terventions require the direct participation of the nonabusive parent. This is based on the rationale that enhancement of the parent–child relationship is a key pathway to children’s recovery (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016). Furthermore, our results suggest that as children make meaning of their experiences, they may raise questions such as “why did you stay?” that parents may find difficult to deal with if they are not adequately prepared. With this in mind, caution is required when offering a therapeutic intervention to children whose parent is unable or unwilling to engage; parents may feel alienated and resist involve- ment in supportive services altogether. In such circumstances, it may be preferable to work directly with parents to systematically address any perceived and modifiable barriers to engagement, which may also improve treatment outcomes. 4.4 | Readiness as an ecologically nested construct Similar to the readiness of female victims of DVA to engage in safety‐ promoting behaviours (Heise, 1998, 2011), our results suggest that 18  |     HOWARTH eT Al. parent and child readiness to take up an intervention in the after- math of DVA is determined by the confluence of individual, relation- ship and organisational factors. In line with Cluss et al., (2006), we found relational factors such as the quality of interaction with a professional and support from a parent can influence internal factors such as awareness of abuse and in turn willingness to engage. We found that external factors also impacted readiness; however, the strongest theme to emerge was related to the organisational context of the agency offering support to the mother and child. Our findings suggest that organisational context can impact the ability of individual workers to deliver an in- tervention and to find the time needed to build rapport with parents and children; those who have reached a point of individual readi- ness may be less willing to take up an intervention that is offered by unskilled staff or by an organisation perceived as unable to place appropriate priority on children’s recovery. The role of organisational context is not explored by the psycho- logical readiness model; however, this finding is consistent with the notion that complex interventions interact with the context in which they are delivered (Howarth, Devers, & Moore, 2016). Importantly, our findings suggest that this interaction may begin even before the intervention is delivered, at the point when an individual or family is weighing up whether to participate. In addition, programme struc- ture (e.g. frequency and duration of sessions) and content, super- visory support, stability of funding, level of provider turnover and neighbourhood location may each influence family engagement, (Kumpfer, Alvarado, Smith, & Bellamy, 2002; McCurdy & Daro, 2001; McGuigan, Katzev, & Pratt, 2003). Furthermore, implemen- tation researchers consistently cite the importance of practitioner, organisation and even community readiness for determining the quality of implementation and in turn service user engagement and eventual treatment outcomes (Fixsen, Naoom, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005). Several reviews of engagement and retention strategies in child and adolescent programmes concluded that only those strat- egies that address the broader ecological context of the family and the service delivery approach were effective in reducing the drop- out rate (Ingoldsby, 2010; Staudt, 2003). An ecological perspective allows for the identification of multiple factors that may influence engagement and uptake of child‐focussed interventions and moves us away from viewing failure to engage as resulting exclusively from individual factors, such as motivation and resistance (Staudt, 2003). This may be particularly relevant when specialist DVA interventions are delivered by organisations lacking stable funding. 5  | CONCLUSIONS Three key findings emerge from this review of qualitative evidence exploring parent, child and professional experiences of delivering and receiving child‐focussed interventions following exposure to DVA. First, parent and child readiness is influenced by a complex interplay of individual, relationship and organisational factors, suggesting that individual readiness to take up child‐focussed interventions should be viewed through an ecological lens. Second, whilst the psychological readiness model can be used as a heuristic to describe parental readi- ness to engage in child‐focussed support, the specific process through which women become ready to engage in or facilitate interventions for children requires mothers to be aware of the impact of DVA on children and able to shift focus away from their own needs to those of their children, and thus differs from the process related to uptake of safety‐ promoting behaviours. Third, our results highlight the distinct but in- terlinked processes through which parents and children reach a point of readiness to engage in an intervention aimed at improving child out- comes. These findings have some clear implications for both practice and research; however, it is pertinent to first consider the limitations of this study so that the reader can weigh these against one another. 6  | LIMITATIONS First, this synthesis included studies which evaluated the experi- ences of parents and children who had received an intervention and did not include studies focussing on the perspectives of parents and children, prior to uptake. Therefore, this study does not explore readiness from the vantage point of those who did not take up an intervention. The views of professionals provide some insight into the role that readiness plays; however, a more extensive exploration of the first‐hand accounts is required. Second, the studies included in this review evaluated the experi- ences of delivering and receiving interventions when the risk of con- tinuing abuse has reduced or ceased. Therefore, it is not possible to determine whether the findings presented here extend to readiness to take up different types of interventions, or to parents and children who are experiencing ongoing abuse. The studies reviewed in depth reported little on the readiness of the abusive party relating either to their own or the participation of other family members. As whole family models of intervention become more prevalent (Stanley & Humphreys, 2017), readiness of abusive parents to engage or allow engagement in child‐focussed interventions warrants further investigation. Third, the evidence that is synthesised here is derived from stud- ies where the majority of children were aged 4–12 and so is not neces- sarily generalisable to children of all ages. This is particularly relevant given the relatedness of parent and child readiness discussed here. Young people may have greater autonomy to access interventions in the absence of parental support and may value an intervention that is delivered independent of parents; indeed, guarantees of confidential- ity from parents may be a prerequisite of older children’s willingness to engage (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016). Therefore, it is necessary to explore the construct of readiness and how this influences the ap- propriateness of particular interventions by the developmental stage. 7  | CLINIC AL AND RESE ARCH IMPLIC ATIONS This study offers insight into readiness of children and parents from an ecological perspective, which can help to guide the      |  19HOWARTH eT Al. development of specific engagement strategies. Our results un- derscore the necessity for DVA interventions to address multilevel influences that determine readiness, rather than focusing solely on individual variables. The reasonably well‐developed evidence based on strategies to enhance family engagement in child and adolescent mental health interventions may serve as a foundation for this work, although the results presented here suggest that DVA engagement strategies should address the practical and emo- tional barriers that may prevent parents from focussing on their children’s needs and also on the delivery of clear information for parents about DVA impact on children’s well‐being. Our results also suggest that children who do not appear ready to take up an intervention may develop a sense of readiness through their par- ticipation; therefore, these children may benefit from access to an intervention on a second occasion or access to a sequence of interventions. From a research perspective, there is a need to understand how initial parent and child readiness determines the acceptability and effectiveness of particular interventions; this will require mixed method trials of interventions to stratify by readiness at the point of randomisation (Ramsay et al., 2009). Readiness should also be mea- sured as an intermediate outcome to examine its role in intervention (O’Doherty et al., 2014). Currently, there is a paucity of well‐vali- dated tools to measure readiness. Research on DVA interventions has largely ignored the roles of organisational and larger structural systems that shape interpersonal violence and the way that interventions are delivered (Howarth, Moore, et al., 2016). Our findings underscore the importance of the broader socioecological context in which interventions are offered in shaping whether the offer is taken up by parents and children. In addition to careful consideration of the acceptability of interven- tions to those receiving and delivering them, future intervention de- velopment should take account of the organisational and community contexts in which interventions are delivered, to enhance the likeli- hood of effective engagement. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION Theresa Moore oversaw and managed the review process, extracted constructs and worked on the synthesis. She drafted the manuscript and revised drafts and is joint first author and corresponding au- thor. Emma Howarth provided a child development and domestic violence and abuse perspective, extracted constructs and worked on the synthesis. She drafted the manuscript and revised the drafts and is joint first author. Gene Feder provided domestic violence and health perspective and provided comments on the manuscript. He conceptualised the NIHR “Improving Outcomes for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence and Abuse,” research programme of which this was part. Harriet MacMillan provided a child health perspective and commented and shaped the manuscript. Ali Shaw oversaw the research, extracted construct, worked on the synthesis particularly in relationship to the ecological model, drafted the man- uscript and commented on revisions to the draft. Ali also provided qualitative research expertise. Nicky Stanley provided a social work and child development perspective and commented and shaped the manuscript. CONFLIC T OF INTERE S T Gene Feder, Emma Howarth, Harriet MacMillan, Theresa Moore, Ali Shaw and Nicky Stanley have no known conflicts of interest. ORCID Theresa HM Moore http://orcid.org/0000‐0003‐3719‐6361 Nicky Stanley http://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐7644‐1625 Gene Feder http://orcid.org/0000‐0002‐7890‐3926 R E FE R E N C E S Afifi, T. O., MacMillan, H. L., Boyle, M., Taillieu, T., Cheung, K., & Sareen, J. (2014). Child abuse and mental disorders in Canada. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 186(9), E324–E332. https://doi. org/10.1503/cmaj.131792 Beauchaine, T. P., Webster‐Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2005). Mediators, moderators, and predictors of 1‐year outcomes among children treated for early‐onset conduct problems: A latent growth curve analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73(3), 371– 388. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐006x.73.3.371 Belsky, J. (1980). Child maltreatment: An ecological integra- tion. American Psychologist, 35(4), 320–335. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003‐066X.35.4.320 British Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health (2013). Research question 4: Effectiveness review of interventions for children who are exposed to domestic violence (Unpublished). In Review of Interventions to Identify, Prevent, Reduce and Respond to Domestic Violence (pp. 216–253). Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513–531. https://doi. org/10.1037/0003‐066X.32.7.513 Campbell, J. C., Pound, P., Morgan, M., Dakar‐White, G., Britten, N., Pill, R., & Donovan, J. (2003a). Evaluating meta‐ethnography: Systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. HTA, 15(43),https:// doi,org/10.3310/hta15430 Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol‐McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097. https://doi. org/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089 CASP (2010). 10 questions to help you make sense of qualitative re- search. Retrieved from Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Making sense of evidence website: http://www.casp‐uk.net/ Cater, Å. K. (2014). Children’s descriptions of participation processes in interventions for children exposed to intimate partner violence. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 31(5), 455–473. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s10560‐014‐0330‐z Cluss, P. A., Chang, J. C., Hawker, L., Hudson Scholle, S., Dado, D., Buranosky, R., & Goldstrohm, S. (2006). The process of change for victims of intimate partner violence. Women's Health Issues, 16(5), 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2006.06.006 Cui, M., Durtschi, J. A., Donnellan, M. B., Lorenz, F. O., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Intergenerational transmission of relationship aggression: A prospective longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 688–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021675 20  |     HOWARTH eT Al. Elvins, R., & Green, J. (2008). The conceptualization and measurement of therapeutic alliance: An empirical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(7), 1167–1187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.04.002 Ermentrout, D. M., Rizo, C. F., & Macy, R. J. (2014). "This is about me": feasibility findings from the children's component of an IPV inter- vention for justice‐involved families. Violence Against Women, 20(6), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801214539856 Evans, S. E., Davies, C., & DiLillo, D. (2008). Exposure to domestic vio- lence: A meta‐analysis of child and adolescent outcomes. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 13, 131–140. Feder, G., & Potter, L. (2017). Why gender can’t be ignored when dealing with domestic violence. The Conversation. Retrieved from https:// theconversation.com/why‐gender‐cant‐be‐ignored‐when‐dealing‐ with‐domestic‐violence‐74137 Feder, G., Hutson, M., Ramsay, J., & Taket, A. R. (2006). Women exposed to intimate partner violence: Expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: A meta‐analysis of qual- itative studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(1), 22–37. https:// doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.1.22 Fergusson, D. M., & Horwood, L. J. (1998). Exposure to interparen- tal violence in childhood and psychosocial adjustment in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 339–357. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0145‐2134(98)00004‐0 Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2013). Violence, crime, and abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: An update. JAMA Pediatrics, 167(7), 614–621. https://doi. org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.42 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., & FriedmanA. B. K. R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Retrieved from http://nirn.fmhi.usf.edu/resources/publications/Monograph/ http://pdf/monograph_full.pdf Frasier, P. Y., Slatt, L., Kowlowitz, V., & Glowa, P. T. (2001). Using the stages of change model to counsel victims of intimate partner vio- lence. Patient Education and Counseling, 43(2), 211–217. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0738‐3991(00)00152‐X Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. L. (2012). Social ecological approaches to in- dividuals and their contexts. Health Education and Behavior, 39(3), 364–372. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198111418634 Graham‐Bermann, S. A., Kulkarni, M. R., & Kanukollu, S. (2011). Is disclo- sure therapeutic for children following exposure to traumatic vio- lence? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 1056–1076. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0886260510365855 Haggerty, L. A., & Goodman, L. A. (2003). Stages of change‐based nurs- ing interventions for victims of interpersonal violence. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing, 32(1), 68–75. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0884217502239802 Hamby, S., Finkelhor, D., Turner, H., & Ormrod, R. (2010). The overlap of witnessing partner violence with child maltreatment and other victimizations in a nationally representative survey of youth. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(10), 734–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chiabu.2010.03.001 Hegarty, K. L., Gunn, J. M., O'Doherty, L. J., Taft, A., Chondros, P., Feder, G., & Brown, S. (2010). Women's evaluation of abuse and violence care in general practice: A cluster randomised con- trolled trial (weave). Bmc Public Health, 10(1), 2. https://doi. org/10.1186/1471‐2458‐10‐2 Hegarty, K. L., O’Doherty, L. J., Gunn, J., Pierce, D., & Taft, A. J. (2008). A brief counselling intervention by health professionals utilising the ‘readiness to change’ concept for women experiencing intimate partner abuse: The weave project. Journal of Family Studies, 14(2–3), 376–388. https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.327.14.2‐3.376 Heise, L. L. (1998). Violence Against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence against Women, 4(3), 262–290. https://doi. org/10.1177/1077801298004003002 Heise, L. L. (2011). What works to prevent partner violence, Department for International Development, London, UK, Pages 1‐110. Hindmarsh, E., Knowlden, S., McMurchie, M., Schofield, C., & Hegarty, K. (1998). Women and violence (2nd edn). Melbourne, Vic: Royal Australian College of General Practi‐tioners. Howarth, E., Devers, K., & Moore, G. (2016). Contextual issues and qual- itative research. In R. Raine, R. Fitzpatrick, H. Barratt et al. (Eds.), Challenges, solutions and future directions in the evaluation of ser‐ vice innovations in health care and public health (pp. 1‐135). (Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 4.16.) Essay 7. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library. https://doi: 10.3310/hsdr04160‐105 Howarth, E., Moore, T. H. M., Shaw, A. R. G., Welton, N. J., Feder, G. S., Hester, M., & Stanley, N. (2015). The effectiveness of targeted interventions for children exposed to domestic violence: Measuring success in ways that matter to children, parents and profession- als. Child Abuse Review, 24(4), 297–310. https://doi.org/10.1002/ car.2408 Howarth, E., Moore, T. H., Welton, N. J., Lewis, N., Stanley, N., MacMillan, H., & Feder, G. (2016). IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): An evidence synthesis. NIHR Journals Library, 10(4), 341. https://doi.org/10.3310/phr04100 Howell, K. H., Miller, L. E., Lilly, M. M., & Graham‐Bermann, S. A. (2013). Fostering social competence in preschool children exposed to in- timate partner violence: Evaluating the preschool kids' club in- tervention. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 22(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926771.2013.775986 Humphreys, C., Mullender, A., Thiara, R., & Skamballis, A. (2006). 'Talking to My Mum': Developing communication between mothers and children in the aftermath of domestic violence. Journal of Social Work, 6(1), 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017306062223 Humphreys, C., Thiara, R. K., & Skamballis, A. (2011). Readiness to change: Mother‐child relationship and domestic violence inter- vention. British Journal of Social Work, 41(1), 166–184. https://doi. org/10.1093/bjsw/bcq046 Ingoldsby, E. M. (2010). Review of interventions to improve family en- gagement and retention in parent and child mental health pro- grams. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 19, 629–645. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10826‐009‐9350‐2 Itzin, C., Taket, A., & Barter‐Godfrey, S. (2010). Domestic and sexual vio‐ lence and abuse : Findings from a Delphi expert consultation on thera‐ peutic and treatment interventions with victims, survivors and abusers, children adolescents, and adults. Melbourne, Vic.: Deakin University. Jarman, S. (2014). The effectiveness of drama therapy for children who have witnessed domestic abuse. Mental Health Practice, 18(2), 19– 24. 16p. Katz, E. (2015). Recovery‐promoters: Ways in which children and moth- ers support one another's recoveries from domestic violence. The British Journal of Social Work, 45(supple_1), i153–i169. https://doi. org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv091 Kearney, J. A., & Cushing, E. (2012). A multi‐modal pilot intervention with violence‐exposed mothers in a child psychiatric trauma‐focused treatment program. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 33(8), 544–552. https://doi.org/10.3109/01612840.2012.688254 Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Holt, A. R., & Kenny, E. D. (2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(2), 339–352. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022‐006X.71.2.339 Kumpfer, K. L., Alvarado, R., Smith, P., & Bellamy, N. (2002). Cultural sen- sitivity and adaptation in family‐based prevention interventions. Prevention Science, 3(3), 241–246. Lussier, P., Farrington, D. P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2009). Is the antisocial child father of the abusive man? A 40‐year prospective longitudinal study on the developmental antecedents of intimate partner violence. Criminology, 47, 741–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐9125.2009.00160.x      |  21HOWARTH eT Al. Malpass, A., Shaw, A., Sharp, D., Walter, F., Feder, G., Ridd, M., & Kessler, D. (2009). "Medication career" or "moral career"? The two sides of managing antidepressants: A meta‐ethnography of patients' expe- rience of antidepressants. Social Science and Medicine, 68(1), 154– 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.09.068 McCurdy, K., & Daro, D. (2001). Parent involvement in family support programs: An integrated theory*. Family Relations, 50(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741‐3729.2001.00113.x McGee, C. (2000). Childhood experiences of domestic violence. London, Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. McGuigan, W., Katzev, A., & Pratt, C. (2003). Multi‐level determinants of retention in a home‐visiting child abuse prevention program. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27, 363–380. McTavish, J. R., Kimber, M., Devries, K., Colombini, M., MacGregor, J. C. D., Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2017). Mandated reporters’ experiences with reporting child maltreatment: A meta‐synthe- sis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open, 7(10), e013942. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmjopen‐2016‐013942 Meiser‐Stedman, R. (2002). Towards a cognitive‐behavioral model of PTSD in children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 5(4), 217–232. Moore, T., Howarth, E., Feder, G., & Heawood, A. (2013). Children's ex- periences of interventions following their exposure to domestic vi- olence and the experiences of parents and stakeholders: a protocol for a qualitative meta‐synthesis. PROSPERO: International prospec‐ tive register of systematic reviews. Retrieved fromhttp://www.crd. york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004349. CRD42013004349 Mullender, A., Hague, G., Imam, U., Kelly, L., Malos, E., & Regan, L. (2002). Children's perspectives on domestic violence. London, Thousand Oaks, CA, New Delhi, India: Sage Publications. Nicolaidis, C., Curry, M. A., Ulrich, Y., Sharps, P., McFarlane, J., Campbell, D., & Campbell, J. (2003). Could we have known? A qualitative analysis of data from women who survived an attempted homi- cide by an intimate partner. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 18(10), 788–794. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525‐1497.2003. 21202.x Nock, M. K., & Ferriter, C. (2005). Parent management of attendance and adherence in child and adolescent therapy: A conceptual and empirical review. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 8(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567‐005‐4753‐0 O'Doherty, L. J., MacMillan, H., Feder, G., Taft, A., Taket, A., & Hegarty, K. (2014). Selecting outcomes for intimate partner violence in- tervention trials: Overview and recommendations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(6), 663–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. avb.2014.09.010 Paris, P. R. (1999). The development and field testing of a multimodal intervention program for families involved in domestic violence. (Doctoral dissertation) Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences and Engineering, 60(2‐B), 0574. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/developmentfield00pari Peled, E. (1998). The experience of living with violence for preadolescent children of battered women. Youth and Society, 29(4), 395–430. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X98029004001 Peled, E., & Edleson, J. L. (1992). Multiple perspectives on groupwork with children of battered women. Violence and Victims, 7(4), 327–346. Peled, E., & Edleson, J. (1999). Barriers to children's domestic violence counseling: A qualitative study. Families in Society, 80(6), 578–586. https://doi.org/10.1606/1044‐3894.1782 Pilowsky, D. J., Wickramaratne, P., Talati, A., Tang, M., Hughes, C. W., Garber, J., & Weissman, M. M. (2008). Children of de- pressed mothers 1 year after the initiation of maternal treat- ment: Findings from the STAR*D‐Child Study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 165(9), 1136–1147. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi. ajp.2008.07081286 Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1992). Stages of change in the mod- ification of problem behaviors. Progress in Behavior Modification, 28, 183–218. Prochaska, J. O., Velicer, W. F., Rossi, J. S., Goldstein, M. G., Marcus, B. H., Rakowski, W., … Rossi, S. R. (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychology, 13(1), 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐6133.13.1.39 Radford, L., Corral, S., Bradley, B., Fisher, H., Bassett, C., & Howat, N. (2011). Child cruelty in the UK: An NSPCC study into child abuse and neglect over the past 30 years: An NSPCC study. London: NSPCC. Ramsay, J., Carter, Y., Davidson, L., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Feder, G., & Warburton, A. (2009). Advocacy interventions to reduce or elim- inate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well‐ being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Issue 12. Art No.: CD005043.). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub2 Rhodes, K. V., Cerulli, C., Dichter, M. E., & Barg, F. K. (2010). “I didn’t want to put them through that”: The influence of children on victim de- cision‐making in IPV cases. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 483–493. Rishel, C. W., Greeno, C. G., Marcus, S. C., Sales, E., Shear, M. K., Swartz, H. A., & Anderson, C. (2006). Impact of maternal mental health status on child mental health treatment outcome. Community Mental Health Journal, 42(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10597‐005‐9004‐9 Rizo, C. F., Macy R. J., Ermentrout, D. M., & Johns, N. B. (2011). A review of family interventions for intimate partner violence with a child focus or child component. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(2), 144–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.02.004 Rose, D., Trevillion, K., Woodall, A., Morgan, C., Feder, G., & Howard, L. (2011). Barriers and facilitators of disclosures of domestic violence by mental health service users: Qualitative study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 198, 189–194. Russell, D., Springer, K. W., & Greenfield, E. A. (2010). Witnessing do- mestic abuse in childhood as an independent risk factor for depres- sive symptoms in young adulthood. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34(6), 448–453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.10.004 Santisteban, D. A., Suarez‐Morales, L., Robbins, M. S., & Szapocznik, J. (2006). Brief strategic family therapy: lessons learned in efficacy research and challenges to blending research and practice. Family Process, 45(2), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545‐5300.2006. 00094.x Stanley, N., & Humphreys, C. (2017). Identifying the key components of a 'whole family' intervention for families experiencing domestic vi- olence and abuse. Journal of Gender‐Based Violence, 1(1), 99–115. https://doi.org/10.1332/239868017X14913081639164 Stanley, N., Miller, P., Richardson Foster, H., & Thomson, G. (2011). A stop‐start response: Social services' interventions with children and families notified following domestic violence incidents. The British Journal of Social Work, 41(2), 296–313. https://doi.org/10.1093/ bjsw/bcq071 Staudt, M. M. (2003). Helping children access and use services: A re- view. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 12(1), 49–60. https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1021306125491 Stormshak, E. A., Connell, A. M., Véronneau, M.‐H., Myers, M. W., Dishion, T. J., Kavanagh, K., & Caruthers, A. S. (2011). An eco- logical approach to promoting early adolescent mental health and social adaptation: Family‐centered intervention in public middle schools. Child Development, 82(1), 209–225. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01551.x Thompson, E. H. (2011). The evolution of a children's domestic violence counseling group: Stages and processes. Journal for Specialists in Group Work, 36(3), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/01933922.2 011.578118 Thompson, S. J., Bender, K., Lantry, J., & Flynn, P. M. (2007). Treatment engagement: Building therapeutic alliance in home‐based treatment 22  |     HOWARTH eT Al. with adolescents and their families. Contemporary Family Therapy, 29(1–2), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591‐007‐9030‐6 Thompson, E. H. (2009). Child‐witnesses of domestic violence: The evolution of a counseling group. (Doctoral dissertation). Eric da- tabase. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/professional/ docview/822505574?accountxml:id=9730 Visser, M. M., Telman, M. D., de Schipper, J. C., Lamers‐Winkelman, F., Schuengel, C., & Finkenauer, C. (2015). The effects of parental components in a trauma‐focused cognitive behavioral based ther- apy for children exposed to interparental violence: Study proto- col for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Psychiatry. 15 (1), 131. Article Number, 131. Date of Publication: June 123. doi: https://doi. org/10.1186/s12888‐015‐0533‐7 WHO (2002). World report on violence and health. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/violence/ world_report/en/ Wolfe, D. A., Crooks, C. V., Lee, V., McIntyre‐Smith, A., & Jaffe, P. G. (2003). The effects of children's exposure to domestic violence: A meta‐analysis and critique. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 6(3), 171–187. Zink, T., Elder, N., Jacobson, J., & Klostermann, B. (2004). Medical man- agement of intimate partner violence considering the stages of change: Precontemplation and contemplation. Annals of Family Medicine, 2(3), 231–239. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.74 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information may be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of the article. How to cite this article: Howarth E, Moore THM, Stanley N, et al. Towards an ecological understanding of readiness to engage with interventions for children exposed to domestic violence and abuse: Systematic review and qualitative synthesis of perspectives of children, parents and practitioners. Health Soc Care Community. 2018;00:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12587