Methodological Challenges in Group-based Randomised Controlled Trials for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators: A Meta-summary

Evidence for treatment effects of group-based Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) perpetrators programmes remains, at best, inconclusive. In the present review, systematic/meta-analytic reviews were used to identify randomised controlled trials and a meta-summary approach was employed to identify method...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Intervención psicosocial Vol. 32; no. 2; pp. 123 - 136
Main Authors: Turner, William, Morgan, Karen, Hester, Marianne, Feder, Gene, Cramer, Helen
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Spain Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y de las Organizaciones 01-05-2023
Colegio Oficial de la Psicología de Madrid
Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Evidence for treatment effects of group-based Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) perpetrators programmes remains, at best, inconclusive. In the present review, systematic/meta-analytic reviews were used to identify randomised controlled trials and a meta-summary approach was employed to identify methodological challenges in the design and conduct of these trials. Of the fifteen studies identified, seven were comparative effectiveness trials. A range of methodological challenges were also identified by the trialists; source of outcome data, treatment modality, attrition and sample characteristics were the most frequently mentioned. Although there are only a few randomised controlled trials compared to non randomised studies, the findings of both highlight the need to invest in the development of innovative and/or combined IPV treatment programmes to address co-occurring issues such as substance use and trauma. The summary of methodological challenges will provide the first step in the development of methods guidance for researchers working in this area.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Conflict of Interest: The authors of this article declare no conflict of interest.
ISSN:2173-4712
1132-0559
2173-4712
DOI:10.5093/pi2023a9