哪些殴打干预措施有效?亲密伴侣暴力治疗结果研究的最新元分析综述

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-05-03 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102437
Julia C. Babcock, Matthew W. Gallagher, Angela Richardson, D. Andrew Godfrey, Victoria E. Reeves, Johan D'Souza
{"title":"哪些殴打干预措施有效?亲密伴侣暴力治疗结果研究的最新元分析综述","authors":"Julia C. Babcock,&nbsp;Matthew W. Gallagher,&nbsp;Angela Richardson,&nbsp;D. Andrew Godfrey,&nbsp;Victoria E. Reeves,&nbsp;Johan D'Souza","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (<span>Babcock et al., 2004</span>) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including <em>Acceptance and Commitment Therapy</em> and <em>Circles of Pea</em>ce had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"111 ","pages":"Article 102437"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research\",\"authors\":\"Julia C. Babcock,&nbsp;Matthew W. Gallagher,&nbsp;Angela Richardson,&nbsp;D. Andrew Godfrey,&nbsp;Victoria E. Reeves,&nbsp;Johan D'Souza\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102437\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (<span>Babcock et al., 2004</span>) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including <em>Acceptance and Commitment Therapy</em> and <em>Circles of Pea</em>ce had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48458,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"volume\":\"111 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102437\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":13.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Psychology Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000588\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824000588","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本荟萃分析综述是对第一份殴打干预荟萃分析(Babcock 等人,2004 年)的更新,包括 59 项评估对有家庭暴力的男性和女性的治疗效果的研究。我们审查了受控准实验和实验研究的结果文献,以检验德卢斯疗法、认知行为疗法(CBT)和新型疗法对暴力行为后续累犯的相对影响。第一种模式审查了将干预措施与无治疗对照条件进行比较的研究。第二种模式将新型干预与常规治疗(即德卢斯课程)进行比较。研究设计和治疗类型在两个模型中都作为调节因素进行了测试。与之前的荟萃分析一致,当累犯是基于伴侣或警方的报告时,真实实验的效应大小在较小范围内,小于准实验设计的效应大小。然而,将新型治疗方法与德卢斯课程进行比较的新实验显示,其效果大小与将新型干预方法与未接受治疗的对比组进行比较时的效果大小相当。新的干预措施,包括 "接纳与承诺疗法 "和 "和平圈",在与 "德卢斯 "对照组进行正面比较时,效果最大。未来的研究方向包括测试有效的殴打干预措施的调节因素和变化机制。对刑事司法循证实践的影响包括更广泛地实施和继续测试这些在制止亲密伴侣暴力方面具有显著效果的新型干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Which battering interventions work? An updated Meta-analytic review of intimate partner violence treatment outcome research

This meta-analytic review is an update to the first meta-analysis of battering interventions (Babcock et al., 2004) and includes 59 studies that evaluated treatment efficacy for domestically violent men and women. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth, cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), and novel types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. The first model examines studies comparing interventions to no treatment control conditions. The second model compares novel interventions to treatment as usual (i.e., the Duluth curriculum). Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators in both models. Consistent with previous meta-analyses, effect sizes were in the small range, smaller in true experiments as compared to quasi-experimental designs when recidivism was based on partner or police reports. However, new experiments comparing novel treatments to the Duluth curriculum reveal effect sizes comparable to when comparing novel interventions to an untreated comparison group. Novel interventions, including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Circles of Peace had the largest effect sizes when put head-to-head with Duluth control groups. Future research directions include testing moderators and mechanisms of change of the battering interventions that work. Implications for evidence-based practice in criminal justice include broader implementation and continued testing of these novel interventions with demonstrated efficacy in stopping intimate partner violence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Editorial Board How a strong measurement validity review can go astray: A look at Higgins et al. (2024) and recommendations for future measurement-focused reviews Are digital psychological interventions for psychological distress and quality of life in cancer patients effective? A systematic review and network meta-analysis The impact of interventions for depression on self-perceptions in young people: A systematic review & meta-analysis Corrigendum to “Network meta-analysis examining efficacy of components of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia’ [Clinical Psychology Review 114 (2024) 102507].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1