Strengths and Limitations
A strength of this study is the various qualitative data and methods used to evaluate the SAFE intervention, complementing the quantitative evaluation [Some limitations should also be considered when attempting to generalize our findings. First, we had relatively small sample sizes for the survey (n=65) and interview (n=10) data; thus, the outcomes may not reflect the experiences and views of the entire study sample (N=198). Furthermore, for the interviews, we did contact all women from the intervention study arm who agreed to being approached for follow-up research (n=82), but only 12% (10/82) consented to participate in the interview study. Owing to the small sample size, we report a lack of diversity in terms of educational level. We did not include participants from the control study arm in the interviews as they received a less extensive version of the intervention, and we wanted to limit their participation in this study. We deemed this to be a more ethical balance between what we provided for this group and the burden of participating in a scientific study. However, they did have the opportunity to express their opinions in the open questions of the surveys. Furthermore, we did not include these participants as they did not obtain access to the extended intervention and would have probably mostly requested more interactive elements, as identified in our preparatory interviews, which was confirmed by this group’s responses to the open questions in the surveys [Second, the intervention was solely available in Dutch at the time of the study. Therefore, we did not reach women who did not comprehend (sufficient) Dutch but who may be in more susceptible positions regarding the risk of experiencing IPVA [Finally, as many but not all women in the Netherlands are sufficiently (digitally) literate, this intervention may not have been accessible to all women who experience IPVA even if they do proficiently comprehend Dutch [