Cited by 146Intimate Partner and Family ViolencePsychotherapy Techniques and ApplicationsStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 281 of the 286 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence

Open access
Hameed, Mohajer, O'Doherty, Lorna, Gilchrist, Gail, Tirado-Muñoz, Judit, Taft, Angela, Chondros, Patty, Feder, Gene, Tan, Melissa, Hegarty, Kelsey·2020·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is prevalent and strongly associated with mental health problems. Women experiencing IPV attend health services frequently for mental health problems. The World Health Organization recommends that women who have experienced IPV and have a mental health diagnosis should receive evidence-based mental health treatments. However, it is not known if psychological therapies work for women in the context of IPV and whether they cause harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies for women who experience IPV on the primary outcomes of depression, self-efficacy and an indicator of harm (dropouts) at six- to 12-months' follow-up, and on secondary outcomes of other mental health symptoms, anxiety, quality of life, re-exposure to IPV, safety planning and behaviours, use of healthcare and IPV services, and social support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and three other databases, to the end of October 2019. We also searched international trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials and handsearched selected journals, reference lists of included trials and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cross-over trials of psychological therapies with women aged 16 years and older who self-reported recent or lifetime experience of IPV. We included trials if women also experienced co-existing mental health diagnoses or substance abuse issues, or both. Psychological therapies included a wide range of interventions that targeted cognition, motivation and behaviour compared with usual care, no treatment, delayed or minimal interventions. We classified psychological therapies according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's psychological therapies list. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data and undertook 'Risk of Bias' assessment. Treatment effects were compared between experimental and comparator interventions at short-term (up to six months post-baseline), medium-term (six to under 12 months, primary outcome time point), and long-term follow-up (12 months and above). We used standardised mean difference (SMD) for continuous and odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes, and used random-effects meta-analysis, due to high heterogeneity across trials. MAIN RESULTS: We included 33 psychological trials involving 5517 women randomly assigned to experimental (2798 women, 51%) and comparator interventions (2719 women, 49%). Psychological therapies included 11 integrative therapies, nine humanistic therapies, six cognitive behavioural therapy, four third-wave cognitive behavioural therapies and three other psychologically-orientated interventions. There were no trials classified as psychodynamic therapies. Most trials were from high-income countries (19 in USA, three in Iran, two each in Australia and Greece, and one trial each in China, India, Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain and UK), among women recruited from healthcare, community, shelter or refuge settings, or a combination of any or all of these. Psychological therapies were mostly delivered face-to-face (28 trials), but varied by length of treatment (two to 50 sessions) and staff delivering therapies (social workers, nurses, psychologists, community health workers, family doctors, researchers). The average sample size was 82 women (14 to 479), aged 37 years on average, and 66% were unemployed. Half of the women were married or living with a partner and just over half of the participants had experienced IPV in the last 12 months (17 trials), 6% in the past two years (two trials) and 42% during their lifetime (14 trials). Whilst 20 trials (61%) described reliable low-risk random-sampling strategies, only 12 trials (36%) described reliable procedures to conceal the allocation of participant status. While 19 trials measured women's depression, only four trials measured depression as a continuous outcome at medium-term follow-up. These showed a probable beneficial effect of psychological therapies in reducing depression (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.01; four trials, 600 women; moderate-certainty evidence). However, for self-efficacy, there may be no evidence of a difference between groups (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.09; one trial with medium-term follow-up data, 346 women; low-certainty evidence). Further, there may be no difference between the number of women who dropped out from the experimental or comparator intervention groups, an indicator of no harm (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.44; five trials with medium-term follow-up data, 840 women; low-certainty evidence). Although no trials reported adverse events from psychological therapies or participation in the trial, only one trial measured harm outcomes using a validated scale. For secondary outcomes, trials measured anxiety on

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd013017.pub2

Cites

281 of 281 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 286 references

5 of the 286 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Faker, 2016, Comparison of the personality characteristics, physical and psychological abuse in spousal abused applicants in divorced and normal women, Research in Medicine, 40, 155
  2. Hyman, 2002, Impact of emergency department intimate partner violence (IPV) advocacy: a longitudinal, randomized trial, Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 62, 4220
  3. Rothbaum BO Astin M Prolonged exposure versus EMDR for PTSD rape victims PA Resick (Chair), Three clinical trials for the treatment of PTSD: outcome and dissemination. Symposium presented at the 35th Annual Convention for the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, Philadelphia 2001
  4. Santandreu, 2014, Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder on women victims of intimate partner violence, Behavioral Psychology-Psicologia Conductual, 22, 239
  5. Walls NR Assessment of rape survivors' adaptation to assault and a comparison of two types of group therapy for rape survivors Dissertation Abstracts International 1985 46 5-B 1703 4
  6. Zou, 2010, Impact of psychological intervention in the newly-married couples on the occurrence to abused wives, Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 530
  7. Bandura, 1986, Social Foundations of Thought and Action: a Social Cognitive Theory
  8. Evans, 2018, Women’s experiences of a randomised controlled trial of a specialist psychological advocacy intervention following domestic violence: a nested qualitative study, PLOS One, 13, e0193077, 10.1371/journal.pone.0193077 · DOI
  9. Hegarty, 2008, A brief counselling intervention by health professionals utilising the 'readiness to change' concept for women experiencing intimate partner abuse: the weave project, Journal of Family Studies, 14, 376, 10.5172/jfs.327.14.2-3.376 · DOI
  10. Hermann, 1992, Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence
  11. Higgins JP Deeks JJ Altman DG Chapter 16: Special topics in statistics. In: Higgins JP, Green S, editor(s). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011 Available from training.cochrane.org/handbook/PDF/v5.2/chapter-16
  12. O’Doherty, 2016, Receiving care for intimate partner violence in primary care: barriers and enablers for women participating in the weave randomised controlled trial, Social Science & Medicine, 160, 35, 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.05.017 · DOI
  13. Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5) Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration 2014
  14. Schwarzer, 1995, Measures in Health Psychology: A User's Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs, 35
  15. Schünemann HJ Oxman AD Higgins JP Vist GE Glasziou P Akl E on behalf of the Cochrane GRADEing Methods Group and the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group Chapter 11: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the confidence in or quality of the evidence. In: Higgins JP, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, editor(s),.Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017 Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  16. Valpied, 2020, Self-efficacy and doctor support as mediators of depression outcomes following counselling by family doctors for intimate partner violence, Family Practice, 37, 255, 10.1093/fampra/cmz067 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–140 of 140

Metadata

Authors
Hameed, M., O'Doherty, L., Gilchrist, G., Tirado-Muñoz, J., Taft, A., Chondros, P., Feder, G., Tan, M., & Hegarty, K.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Faculty of Health and Life Sciences; Coventry University; Coventry UK
  • King's College London (GB)
  • Municipal Institute for Medical Research (ES)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Royal Women's Hospital (AU)
Venue
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07-01
Volume
2020
Issue
7
Pages
CD013017-CD013017
ISSN
  • 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-1858
OpenAlex
W2800022838
Cited by
146
References
286
Citations by year
2026: 21 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 4
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (Coventry University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • La Trobe University
Funders
World Health Organization
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychotherapy Techniques and Applications
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Keywords
intimate partner violence, psychotherapy, women, depression, self-efficacy, treatment discontinuation, anxiety, quality of life, safety planning, substance abuse, common mental disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, humanistic psychotherapy, integrative therapy
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Patient Dropouts, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Safety, Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Self Efficacy, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review