Cited by 72Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy interventions for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Open access
Tirado-Muñoz, Judit, Gilchrist, Gail, Farré, Magí, Hegarty, Kelsey, Torrens, Marta·2014·Annals of Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of Advocacy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy interventions (CBT) in reducing physical, psychological, sexual, or any intimate partner violence (IPV). METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using randomized control trials (RCTs) published in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Cochrane, and Clinical trials. The occurrence of physical, psychological, sexual, and/or any IPV measured efficacy. RESULTS: Twelve RCTs involving 2666 participants were included. Advocacy interventions resulted in significant reductions in physical (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.25, -0.00) and psychological (SMD -0.19; 95% CI -0.32, -0.05) but not in sexual (SMD -0.20; 95% CI -0.43, 0.02) or any IPV (SMD -0.32; 95% CI -0.69, 0.04). CBT interventions showed a significant reduction in physical (SMD -0.79; 95% CI -1.26, -0.33) and psychological (SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.25, -0.36) but not sexual (SMD -0.35; 95% CI -1.73, 1.03) or any IPV (SMD 0.09; 95% CI -0.05, 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Both advocacy and CBT interventions reduced physical and psychological IPV but not sexual or any IPV. Limitations include the low number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions.

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 · 10.3109/07853890.2014.941918

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.0. Copen- 24. hagen: Th e Nordic Cochrane Centre, Th e Cochrane Collaboration; 2008 .
  2. Calderon SH , Gilbert P , Jackson R , Kohn MA , Gerbert B . Cueing 38. prenatal providers eff ects on discussions of intimate partner violence . Am J Prev Med. 2008 ; 34 : 134 -7 .
  3. Straus MA . Measuring intrafamily confl icted violence: the Confl icts 83. Tactics (CT) Scales . J Marriage Fam. 1981 ; 41 : 75 -88 .
  4. Hudson WW , McIntosh SR . Th e assessment of spouse abuse: two quan- 84. tifi able dimensions . J Marriage Fam. 1981 ; 43 : 873 -85 .

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tirado-Muñoz, J., Gilchrist, G., Farré, M., Hegarty, K., & Torrens, M.
Affiliations
  • Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ES)
  • King's College London (GB)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Torrens, Marta
Venue
Annals of Medicine
Published
2014-09-11
Volume
46
Issue
8
Pages
567-586
ISSN
  • 0785-3890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2060
OpenAlex
W2139908351
Cited by
72
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Annals of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, cognitive behavioral therapy, advocacy interventions, women, physical violence, psychological violence, sexual violence, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Patient Advocacy, Sex Offenses, Spouse Abuse, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic

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