AI-Enabled First-Response Support After Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: A PRISMA-ScR Scoping Review

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly proposed to augment early-stage assistance for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (GBV), including intimate partner and domestic violence, across crisis hotlines, specialist services, digital reporting channels, legal support tools and healthcare pathways. However, the scope, maturity and evaluative strength of the peer-reviewed evidence remain uncertain. We aimed to map the application domains, evaluative maturity, and implementation and safety gaps of this evidence base. Methods: We conducted a scoping review reported according to the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), using a Population–Concept–Context framework focused on AI-enabled first-response and early support. Searches in Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed were supplemented by targeted searches of IEEE Xplore and ACM Digital Library. Records were screened against predefined criteria, charted using a structured form and synthesised descriptively. Results: Original searches yielded 187 records and 21 included sources of evidence. The supplementary search identified 539 records/candidates; 27 full texts were assessed and 6 additional sources met eligibility criteria, yielding 27 included sources of evidence. Evidence covered survivor-facing conversational support; screening and triage in emergency and specialist services; social-triage and online disclosure models; survivor-informed help-seeking and chatbot design; legal/support routing; and enabling modalities such as speech-based approaches. Most sources reported technical performance, usability, acceptability or systems-audit findings, while no workflow-integrated evaluation was identified and survivor-centred effectiveness outcomes, service uptake and adverse-event monitoring were rarely reported. Conclusions: The evidence remains heterogeneous and early-stage, with limited support for service-integrated effectiveness or safety. Included sources more often assessed models, interfaces or prototypes than downstream pathway outcomes. The findings support cautious, pathway-aware interpretation and identify recurring concerns regarding escalation, accountability, equity, digital trace safety and human handover. The proposed practice considerations and outcome domains are author-informed priorities for future pilot and implementation studies, not validated guidelines.