A search for relevant papers was conducted with assistance from a subject librarian at the Stellenbosch University Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences library. Seven databases (CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane and Proquest) were selected because they are comprehensive sources of peer-reviewed research in the relevant fields of interest and types of publications. For grey literature, we conducted searches on Google and specific websites of relevant organisations, such as UN Women, UNFPA, UNESCO, Plan International and Sightsavers. In instances where a report cites relevant information sources, they were screened for eligibility and included. Table 1 outlines the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

This scoping review focused on women with disabilities across all age groups and gender identities, including cisgender and transgender women, without imposing age restrictions to ensure the inclusion of younger participants active in digital spaces. It considered all types of disabilities and included only studies specifically focused on women; studies with mixed-gender samples, key informant data only or without women-identifying participants were excluded. The review examined how widely used consumer technologies enable or exacerbate TFGBV against women with disabilities, excluding studies lacking a technological component. Geographically, the review was limited to LMICs, excluding data from high-income settings. It included diverse sources, such as primary studies, reviews, editorials and externally examined PhD theses. Only research-based grey literature published in English between 2010 and 2024 was considered. Non-research grey literature, opinion pieces, blogs and media content were excluded. A literature search covering the period from 2010 to 2024 was conducted to capture developments over the past decade and a half, reflecting the rapid expansion of digital technologies and their growing relevance to experiences of TFGBV.

Following the completion of database and grey literature searches, all potentially relevant titles and abstracts were compiled into a Research Information Systems (RIS) database and imported into CADIMA (https://www.cadima.info/index.php), a free-to-use, web-based tool that facilitates scoping reviews, systematic reviews and evidence gap maps, for de-duplication. Two reviewers (Shaffa Hameed, Babalwa P. Tyabashe-Phume or Eunice Tunggal) independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, with discrepancies flagged by CADIMA and resolved through discussion. The same reviewers later conducted full-text screenings and exclusion reasons were recorded and reflected in the PRISMA flow diagram. Final inclusion decisions were supported by additional authors. A finalised list of studies was exported from CADIMA for data extraction. Importantly, during the screening process, the review’s parameters were revisited to ensure alignment with the broader study goal.

Using Microsoft Excel, the data extraction sheet and variables were drafted and refined by Shaffa Hameed in an iterative process, with input from other authors. The sheet was first piloted by extracting data from seven studies and then finalised for wider use. Two reviewers independently extracted a subset to check for consistency and resolve any disagreements. The remaining records were divided between them. The final set of variables is listed in Table 2, following a description of our analytical approach.

Ethical clearance to conduct this study was obtained from the Health Research Ethics Committee of Stellenbosch University (No. N24/07/091).

Online Appendix 2 depicts the characteristics of the included studies, and some data extracted from the individual studies. The included studies were classified based on the role of technology – whether it was used to facilitate, escalate or enable violence against women, or alternatively, to stay safe, offer protection from, or respond to such violence. The majority of the studies (n = 30) examined the ways in which technology was utilised to perpetrate or facilitate violence against women. These studies are analysed in greater detail in the second article (Part Two) of this scoping review. Although the two categories – technology as a tool for enabling violence and technology as a means of protection or response were initially treated as mutually exclusive, two studies demonstrated that survivors of TFGBV subsequently appropriated the same technologies (e.g. public disclosures on X, formerly Twitter) to foster solidarity and support among other survivors. Nevertheless, there remains a relative paucity of evidence concerning the use of technology to enhance safety, provide protection or facilitate responses to violence against women. The rest of the studies (n = 13) addressed such interventions or instances where technology played a protective or responsive role.

These 13 studies reported the use of technology as a resource or guide, such as chatbots, mobile apps with informational content or decision aids. Several studies focused on technology-enabled reporting tools that linked survivors to formal support services, including helplines and trauma centres. Others highlighted the role of technology in fostering social support through online disclosures and peer communities. Three studies explored preventative uses of technology, including apps that identify safe areas or create protected virtual spaces for interaction.

Technology was most commonly used as a responsive tool before or after exposure to violence. This included safety planning tools, digital guides and connections to services. Another frequent function involved facilitating access to formal support structures. Some technologies also contributed to violence prevention, such as through crowd-sourced safety data or dedicated safe spaces. For example, a WhatsApp group in China offered a secure environment for female ride-share drivers to share harassment experiences, while social media platforms enabled survivors to find solidarity.

It is important to note that studies, which focused solely on digital activism, such as the hashtag movements like #MeToo, were excluded, as they analysed online content without involving human participants. We also excluded studies linking device ownership or connectivity to GBV protection, as these did not demonstrate direct use of technology in protective or responsive roles.

Studies highlight the unique vulnerabilities faced by adults with intellectual disabilities in digital spaces. A study conducted across Chile, Mexico and Spain found that social media and messaging platforms like WhatsApp were frequently used to perpetrate cyber-bullying, with survivors, most of whom were women, experiencing psychological distress and social isolation (Jenaro et al. 2018). These forms of TFGBV were often perpetrated by peers or known individuals, pointing to how familiar environments remain sites of risk.

Similarly, in the study by Huang and Wang (2023) in China, individuals with physical disabilities who used online video platforms to seek social and emotional support were also subject to online verbal abuse and commercial exploitation. These digital spaces, while offering a means to reclaim agency and social connection, also exposed participants to forms of violence that mirrored the offline marginalisation they already faced, reflecting the continuity of gendered and ableist harm across contexts.

In contrast, several studies highlighted the empowering potential of technology when used within disability-inclusive, safe and supportive frameworks. Marnewick et al. (2022) documented an intervention programme in Cape Town that equipped intellectually disabled learners with skills to use WhatsApp safely. Participants with co-occurring conditions like autism and cerebral palsy developed digital literacy, confidence and coping strategies to prevent cyber risks, illustrating the importance of proactive, preventative education. Similarly, the Malawi-based study by Lee and Massah (2020) demonstrated how low-cost technologies, such as WhatsApp and toll-free hotlines, were employed in disability-inclusive violence prevention programming. These tools enabled communication, awareness-raising and support-seeking among women and girls with disabilities who were subject to severe forms of violence, including forced sterilisation and mutilation. However, the study also identified ongoing gaps in systemic responses and disability data, reinforcing the need for targeted interventions grounded in intersectionality.

Digital platforms also serve as spaces of collective empowerment and solidarity for women with disabilities, particularly in social movements. Lin and Yang (2019) examined how disabled women in China engaged with the #MeToo movement through platforms such as WeChat, using online communities like ‘Sisterhood’ to share their experiences, seek justice and challenge stigma. Survivors, often harmed by known individuals in positions of power, found emotional relief and agency through storytelling and mutual support, despite limited institutional redress. This participatory digital activism reflects a broader trend, where women with disabilities are reclaiming digital spaces to resist violence and articulate their rights. Yet, these efforts exist within fragile ecosystems of support and are frequently met with societal backlash, underscoring the urgent need for inclusive digital environments that both protect and amplify the voices of disabled women.

Several studies offered valuable insights into the unique experiences of LGBTQ+ communities with regard to technology-facilitated violence. Individuals within sexual and gender minority groups are significantly more likely to encounter stigma and violence than their cisgender and heterosexual peers, a trend that extends into digital spaces, where such incidents frequently go unreported (Malta et al. 2023).

The intersection of violence and sexual orientation shows how structural inequalities are reproduced and intensified in digital spaces, especially for LGBTQ+ individuals and people with disabilities (Malta et al. 2023). While digital platforms offer connection and identity exploration, they also enable harassment, exclusion and abuse. In Bangladesh, Nova, Saha and Guha (2023) found that LGBTQ+ users of platforms like Facebook and Tinder faced threats, blackmail and online harassment, often motivated by extremist religious beliefs.

Many reported trauma, anxiety and fear, adopting coping strategies like blocking users, using aliases or avoiding platforms altogether. Similarly, Alichie (2023) reported that Nigerian LGBTQ+ users experienced online homophobia, reinforced by the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act, which legitimised discrimination and led to digital self-censorship. These findings reveal how digital spaces can be both sources of community and environments of danger for LGBTQ+ people, especially in contexts where their rights are legally restricted or culturally condemned.

In India, Maji and Abhiram (2023) conducted a mixed-methods study highlighting the emotional and psychological toll of cyber-bullying on LGBTQ+ individuals. Cyber-bullying included verbal and sexual harassment, often from anonymous or homophobic users. The consequences were profound, ranging from depression and anxiety to self-injury and suicidal ideation (Maji & Abhiram 2023). Nonetheless, some participants reported finding strength and solidarity through online networks, engaging in digital coming out and support groups. The dual nature of digital environments – as sources of harm and healing was echoed in Platero and López-Sáez’s (2022) study of Spanish LGBTQ+ youth during the coronavirus disease 209 (COVID-19) pandemic. While social media offered avenues for identity exploration and social connection, youth also encountered hostility and anti-LGBTQ+ violence online (Platero & López-Sáez 2022). Transgender and non-binary individuals, in particular, reported heightened vulnerability, underlining the urgent need for targeted online support services (Platero & López-Sáez 2022).

On a more intervention-focused note, Malta et al. (2023) documented the development and testing of the Rainbow Resistance, the Dandarah app in Brazil. The app was co-designed with LGBTQ+ communities and aimed to address violence and discrimination through features like a panic button, mental health screening and mapping of safe services (Malta et al. 2023). Used by over 4000 individuals, the app played a crucial role in enhancing safety, facilitating access to support and documenting incidents of violence in schools, homes, healthcare settings and public spaces (Malta et al. 2023). Survivors shared how the app enabled them to seek protection and connect with shelters and counselling services. This intervention underscores the importance of community-led, inclusive digital tools in addressing technology facilitated violence (TFV) and supporting marginalised populations (Malta et al. 2023). These studies show that LGBTQ+ individuals face unique and compounded risks of technology-facilitated violence shaped by cultural, religious and legal factors. Yet, they also demonstrate how these communities use digital tools to navigate, resist and build resilience within hostile online environments.

Firstly, the findings from the papers in this section suggest that women with disabilities and members of the LGBTQI+ community face heightened vulnerability to TFGBV compared to the general female population because of intersecting layers of marginalisation, structural inequality and social stigma (Alichie 2023; Jenaro et al. 2018). Heightened vulnerability stems from social isolation, dependency and barriers to digital literacy, particularly for women with intellectual disabilities (Jenaro et al. 2018). Studies have shown that women with disabilities often rely more heavily on digital technologies for social interaction, support and autonomy, yet they are simultaneously at greater risk of abuse through these platforms (Jenaro et al. 2018; Marnewick et al. 2022).

Secondly, LGBTQI+ individuals experience TFGBV as an extension of systemic discrimination and criminalisation of their identities (Alichie 2023). In many contexts, LGBTQI+ people face heightened surveillance, harassment and threats from both state and non-state actors, which often migrate to online spaces (Alichie 2023; Nova et al. 2023).

Mental health impacts and social stigma exacerbate the consequences of TFGBV for these populations. Survivors of cyber-bullying and online harassment often experience symptoms of depression, anxiety and even suicidal ideation (Maji & Abhiram 2023; Platero & López-Sáez 2022). For people with disabilities, psychological harm from online abuse is intensified by existing social isolation, internalised stigma and the lack of accessible psychosocial support (Jenaro et al. 2018). These impacts often go unaddressed because of institutional neglect and the invisibility of these groups in mainstream GBV discourse.

Thirdly, several studies in this scoping review identified socio-economic and contextual factors, such as low income, rural residence and limited education, as contributing to women’s vulnerability to TFGBV (Alsawalqa 2021; Bhimdiwala, Adavi & Arif 2024; Friend 2023; Kavasoğlu, Eratlı Şirin & Uğurlu 2023). These conditions often correlate with reduced digital literacy and limited access to privacy and security tools, which hinder women’s ability to protect themselves online; these result in compounded vulnerabilities. Marital status was also noted in a few studies, with some findings suggesting that married women may be less exposed to TFGBV (Hashemi et al. 2024; Zagloul et al. 2022). However, this correlation remains inconclusive and requires further exploration.

Other studies emphasised that women with public visibility, particularly journalists and sports figures, face heightened TFGBV because of their presence in male-dominated or politicised spaces (Chen et al. 2018; Kavasoğlu et al. 2023; Koirala 2020; Yalcinoz-Ucan & Eslen-Ziya 2023). Female journalists reported self-censorship or reluctance to promote their work in response to harassment, while female athletes expressed frustration that visibility essential for branding and sponsorship also exposed them to body-focused harassment (Kavasoğlu et al. 2023). These cases illustrate how TFGBV not only undermines personal safety but also may have direct professional and economic consequences.

Technology-facilitated gender-based violence significantly affects survivors across multiple dimensions, including psychological, physical, social, functional and aspirational.