This Campbell systematic review assesses the effects of advocacy interventions on intimate partner violence and women's wellbeing. The review summarizes findings from 13 studies.

Physical abuse: After one year, brief advocacy had no effect in two healthcare studies and one community study, but it reduced minor abuse in one antenatal care study. Another antenatal study showed reduced abuse immediately after brief advocacy, but women were also treated for depression, which may have affected results. Two studies provided weak evidence that intensive advocacy reduces physical abuse up to two years after the intervention.

Sexual abuse was reported in four studies that found no effects.

Emotional abuse: One antenatal care study reported reduced emotional abuse at 12 months after advocacy.

Depression: Brief advocacy prevented depression in abused women attending healthcare services and pregnant women immediately after advocacy. Intensive advocacy did not reduce depression in shelter women followed up at 12 and 24 months. The moderate‐to‐low quality evidence came mostly from studies with a low risk of bias.

Quality of life: Three trials of brief advocacy trials no benefit on quality of life. Intensive advocacy showed a weak benefit in two studies in domestic violence shelters/refuges, and a primary care study showed improved motivation to do daily tasks immediately after advocacy.

Intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short‐ and long‐term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand‐alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi‐component (and possibly multi‐agency) intervention provided by service staff or others.

To assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse.

In April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field.

Randomised or quasi‐randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it).

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events.

We included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.

The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow‐up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated …