While rape crisis center (RCC) advocacy is generally regarded as valuable, there are no prior systematic reviews of the advocacy literature. This review examined RCC advocacy service provision, perceptions and impact of advocacy, and challenges and facilitators to effective service provision. Databases related to health and social sciences were searched including Academic Search Complete, PsychINFO, PubMed, CINAHL, ProQuest, Science Direct, OAlster, WorldCat, and MEDLINE. Empirical articles written in English that examined RCC advocacy service provision and/or impact in the US were included. The researchers reviewed abstracts and titles, and then full texts. Forty-five articles met criteria, were summarized, and double checked. Findings demonstrate advocacy is multi-faceted, beneficial, and challenging. Advocates work directly with survivors and interact with other responders on behalf of survivors. Specifically, advocates provide emotional support, safety plan, support survivors in making decisions, and assist them in navigating other systems. While advocates are generally regarded positively by survivors and responders, some responders have concerns about advocates. In addition, advocates sometimes report victim-blaming and being ill-equipped to meet survivors’ needs. Finally, advocates face specific challenges in their work with survivors and responders. Future research using diverse methodological approaches is needed to understand advocacy utilization and reach; survivors’ perceptions of advocacy; marginalized survivors’ experiences; connections between specific services, implementation, and outcomes; and effective strategies for advocates’ interactions with other responders. Additional resources to help advocates serve all survivors effectively and equitably; to support evaluator-practitioner partnerships; and to share unpublished data on advocacy may help contribute to improvements in advocacy practice.

虽然强奸危机中心 (RCC) 的宣传通常被认为是有价值的，但之前没有对宣传文献的系统评价。本次审查审查了 RCC 宣传服务的提供、宣传的看法和影响，以及有效服务提供的挑战和促进因素。搜索了与健康和社会科学相关的数据库，包括 Academic Search Complete、PsychINFO、PubMed、CINAHL、ProQuest、Science Direct、OAlster、WorldCat 和 MEDLINE。包括用英语撰写的实证文章，这些文章检查了 RCC 倡导服务的提供和/或在美国的影响。研究人员审查了摘要和标题，然后是全文。45 篇文章符合标准，经过总结和双重检查。调查结果表明，倡导是多方面的、有益的和具有挑战性的。倡导者直接与幸存者合作，并代表幸存者与其他响应者互动。具体来说，倡导者提供情感支持、安全计划、支持幸存者做出决定，并帮助他们在其他系统中导航。虽然幸存者和响应者普遍对倡导者持积极态度，但一些响应者对倡导者表示担忧。此外，倡导者有时会报告指责受害者并且没有能力满足幸存者的需求。最后，倡导者在与幸存者和响应者的合作中面临着具体的挑战。未来需要使用不同的方法进行研究，以了解宣传的利用和影响；幸存者对倡导的看法；边缘化幸存者的经历；特定服务、实施和结果之间的联系；倡导者与其他响应者互动的有效策略。帮助倡导者有效和公平地为所有幸存者服务的额外资源；支持评估者与从业者的伙伴关系；分享未发表的倡导数据可能有助于改进倡导实践。