Implications
SECONDARY, RECRUITMENT
With regard to improving self-efficacy and mental health in women IPVA survivors, we could conclude that while some studies found significant improvements for both groups [Overall, the feasibility of this intervention is high, with survivors expressing a demand for web-based options and professionals expressing interest in implementing this type of support. Hence, in addition to the direct use by IPVA survivors, professionals have the option to refer clients or patients to the platform as an additional means of support, as a bridging tool when waitlisted for an in-person intervention, or as part of a blended care approach [We thank all of the participants in the SAFE study and all the survivors (and bystanders) who put their trust in us and reached out to us, either by registering for the SAFE intervention or by contacting us for advice. We also thank all the professionals, survivor-professionals (in Dutch: Authors' Contributions: NEG, SOP, SAL, KAWLRN, and JBP designed the research. NEG developed and promoted the SAFE intervention and supported the recruitment of study participants. NEG analyzed the data with help from Reinier Akkermans (statistician) and under supervision of SAL, SOP, KAWLRN, and JBP. NEG wrote the manuscript. SAL, SOP, KAWLRN, and JBP reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.Conflicts of Interest: The SAFE intervention that was evaluated in this study was designed by the authors and built by an eHealth developer (Ippo) outside the Radboudumc.Primary and secondary outcome measures and measurement timepoints.Check for selective attrition bias at the M6 survey on self-efficacy.Login prerequisites for the intervention during the OFS.User data from the RCT study arms and OFS group.Feasibility data from Matomo and SAFE’s social media accounts and messages.Information on the eHealth developer costs of the SAFE intervention.CONSORT-eHEALTH checklist (V 1.6.1).