Family violence across the life cycle

Aims to address clinical questions that general practitioners (GPs) may have in identifying and responding to patients experiencing family violence. Background Family violence covers a range of abuse including child abuse and neglect, intimate partner violence and elder abuse. Each form of abuse has a significant negative impact on health and wellbeing, and patients present to general practice with varying physical and psychological issues. General practice is unique in that it often works with an entire family, which can be challeng-ing and needs to be actively managed. Objective This article aims to address clinical questions that general practitioners (GPs) may have in identifying and responding to patients experiencing family violence. It takes into account the different types of abuse victims experience and how to respond to perpetrators. The recommendations in this article can also apply to same-sex relationships. Discussion Managing family violence requires a whole-of-practice approach to encourage a safe environment in which families can dis-close abuse and where GPs can respond appropriately. Abuse can be inter-generational and GPs have a role in identification, management and referral.   &nbsp

Assessing the feasibility of a web-based domestic violence intervention using chronic disease frameworks: reducing the burden of 'treatment' and promoting capacity for action in women abused by a partner.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence shares many features with chronic disease, including ongoing physical and mental health problems and eroded self-efficacy. Given the challenges around help-seeking for women experiencing domestic violence, it is essential that they be given support to 'self-manage' their condition. The growing popularity of web-based applications for chronic disease self-management suggests that there may be opportunities to use them as an intervention strategy for women experiencing domestic violence, however, as yet, little is known about whether this might work in practice. DISCUSSION: It is critical that interventions for domestic violence-whether web-based or otherwise-promote agency and capacity for action rather than adding to the 'workload' of already stressed and vulnerable women. Although randomised controlled trials are vital to determine the effectiveness of interventions, robust theoretical frameworks can complement them as a way of examining the feasibility of implementing an intervention in practice. To date, no such frameworks have been developed for the domestic violence context. Consequently, in this paper we propose that it may be useful to appraise interventions for domestic violence using frameworks developed to help understand the barriers and facilitators around self-management of chronic conditions. Using a case study of an online healthy relationship tool and safety decision aid developed in Australia (I-DECIDE), this paper adapts and applies two theories: Burden of Treatment Theory and Normalisation Process Theory, to assess whether the intervention might increase women's agency and capacity for action. In doing this, it proposes a new theoretical model with which the practical application of domestic violence interventions could be appraised in conjunction with other evaluation frameworks. This paper argues that theoretical frameworks for chronic disease are appropriate to assess the feasibility of implementing interventions for domestic violence in practice. The use of the modified Burden of Treatment/Normalisation Process Theory framework developed in this paper strengthens the case for I-DECIDE and other web-based applications as a way of supporting women experiencing domestic violence

Promoting EArly intervention with men's use of violence in ReLationships through primary care (PEARL study)

The PEARL study will address an evidence gap around early intervention with male perpetrators of domestic violence through primary care.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

Interventions in Health Settings for Male Perpetrators or Victims of Intimate Partner Violence

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common in patients attending health-care services and is associated with a range of health problems. The majority of IPV perpetrators are men, and a substantial minority of men are victims, yet health-care professionals have little evidence or guidance on how to respond to male patients who perpetrate or experience violence in their intimate relationships. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of interventions for male perpetrators or victims of IPV in health settings. Online databases, reference lists, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. Narrative synthesis methods were used due to the heterogeneity of study types and outcome measures. Results: Fourteen studies describing 10 interventions met our inclusion criteria: nine randomized controlled trials, four cohort studies, and one case-control study. Interventions were predominantly therapeutic in nature and many were conducted in alcohol treatment settings. Conclusion: Overall, the evidence for effectiveness of interventions in health-care settings was weak, although IPV interventions conducted concurrently with alcohol treatment show some promise. More work is urgently needed in health-care services to determine what interventions might be effective, and in what settings, to improve the response to male perpetrators or victims of IPV. </jats:sec

Health practitioners' readiness to address domestic violence and abuse:A qualitative meta-synthesis

Health practitioners play an important role in identifying and responding to domestic violence and abuse (DVA). Despite a large amount of evidence about barriers and facilitators influencing health practitioners' care of survivors of DVA, evidence about their readiness to address DVA has not been synthesised. This article reports a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies exploring the research question: What do health practitioners perceive enhances their readiness to address domestic violence and abuse? Multiple data bases were searched in June 2018. Inclusion criteria included: qualitative design; population of health practitioners in clinical settings; and a focus on intimate partner violence. Two reviewers independently screened articles and findings from included papers were synthesised according to the method of thematic synthesis. Forty-seven articles were included in the final sample, spanning 41 individual studies, four systematic reviews and two theses between the years of 1992 and 2018; mostly from high income countries. Five themes were identified as enhancing readiness of health practitioners to address DVA: Having a commitment; Adopting an advocacy approach; Trusting the relationship; Collaborating with a team; and Being supported by the health system. We then propose a health practitioners' readiness framework called the CATCH Model (Commitment, Advocacy, Trust, Collaboration, Health system support). Applying this model to health practitioners' different readiness for change (using Stage of Change framework) allows us to tailor facilitating strategies in the health setting to enable greater readiness to deal with intimate partner abuse

Psychosocial interventions for survivors of rape and sexual assault experienced during adulthood

© 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY), https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Background: Exposure to rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse has lifelong impacts for mental health and well-being. Prolonged Exposure (PE), Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR) are among the most common interventions offered to survivors to alleviate post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other psychological impacts. Beyond such trauma-focused cognitive and behavioural approaches, there is a range of low-intensity interventions along with new and emerging non-exposure based approaches (trauma-sensitive yoga, Reconsolidation of Traumatic Memories and Lifespan Integration). This review presents a timely assessment of international evidence on any type of psychosocial intervention offered to individuals who experienced rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse as adults. Objectives: To assess the effects of psychosocial interventions on mental health and well-being for survivors of rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse experienced during adulthood. Search methods: In January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 other databases and three trials registers. We also checked reference lists of included studies, contacted authors and experts, and ran forward citation searches. Selection criteria: Any study that allocated individuals or clusters of individuals by a random or quasi-random method to a psychosocial intervention that promoted recovery and healing following exposure to rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse in those aged 18 years and above compared with no or minimal intervention, usual care, wait-list, pharmacological only or active comparison(s). We classified psychosocial interventions according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group’s psychological therapies list. Data collection and analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results: We included 36 studies (1991 to 2021) with 3992 participants randomly assigned to 60 experimental groups (3014; 76%) and 23 inactive comparator conditions (978, 24%). The experimental groups consisted of: 32 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT); 10 behavioural interventions; three integrative therapies; three humanist; five other psychologically oriented interventions; and seven other psychosocial interventions. Delivery involved 1 to 20 (median 11) sessions of traditional face-to-face (41) or other individual formats (four); groups (nine); or involved computer-only interaction (six). Most studies were conducted in the USA (n = 26); two were from South Africa; two from the Democratic Republic of the Congo; with single studies from Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Five studies did not disclose a funding source, and all disclosed sources were public funding. Participants were invited from a range of settings: from the community, through the media, from universities and in places where people might seek help for their mental health (e.g. war veterans), in the aftermath of sexual trauma (sexual assault centres and emergency departments) or for problems that accompany the experience of sexual violence (e.g. sexual health/primary care clinics). Participants randomised were 99% women (3965 participants) with just 27 men. Half were Black, African or African-American (1889 participants); 40% White/Caucasian (1530 participants); and 10% represented a range of other ethnic backgrounds (396 participants). The weighted mean age was 35.9 years (standard deviation (SD) 9.6). Eighty-two per cent had experienced rape or sexual assault in adulthood (3260/3992). Twenty-two studies (61%) required fulfilling a measured PTSD diagnostic threshold for inclusion; however, 94% of participants (2239/2370) were reported as having clinically relevant PTSD symptoms at entry. The comparison of psychosocial interventions with inactive controls detected that there may be a beneficial effect at post-treatment favouring psychosocial interventions in reducing PTSD (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.22 to -0.44; 16 studies, 1130 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size based on Cohen’s D); and depression (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.48; 12 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence; large effect size). Psychosocial interventions, however, may not increase the risk of dropout from treatment compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 0.85 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.44; 5 studies, 242 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seven of the 23 studies (with 801 participants) comparing a psychosocial intervention to an inactive control reported on adverse events, with 21 events indicated. Psychosocial interventions may not increase the risk of adverse events compared to controls, with a risk ratio of 1.92 (95% CI 0.30 to 12.41; 6 studies; 622 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We conducted an assessment of risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool on a total of 49 reported results. A high risk of bias affected 43% of PTSD results; 59% for depression symptoms; 40% for treatment dropout; and one-third for adverse events. The greatest sources of bias were problems with randomisation and missing outcome data. Heterogeneity was also high, ranging from I 2 = 30% (adverse events) to I 2 = 87% (PTSD). Authors' conclusions: Our review suggests that survivors of rape, sexual violence and sexual abuse during adulthood may experience a large reduction in post-treatment PTSD symptoms and depressive symptoms after experiencing a psychosocial intervention, relative to comparison groups. Psychosocial interventions do not seem to increase dropout from treatment or adverse events/effects compared to controls. However, the number of dropouts and study attrition were generally high, potentially missing harms of exposure to interventions and/or research participation. Also, the differential effects of specific intervention types needs further investigation. We conclude that a range of behavioural and CBT-based interventions may improve the mental health of survivors of rape, sexual assault and sexual abuse in the short term. Therefore, the needs and preferences of individuals must be considered in selecting suitable approaches to therapy and support. The primary outcome in this review focused on the post-treatment period and the question about whether benefits are sustained over time persists. However, attaining such evidence from studies that lack an active comparison may be impractical and even unethical. Thus, we suggest that studies undertake head-to-head comparisons of different intervention types; in particular, of novel, emerging therapies, with one-year plus follow-up periods. Additionally, researchers should focus on the therapeutic benefits and costs for subpopulations such as male survivors and those living with complex PTSD.Peer reviewe