Intimate partner violence

Abstract

This chapter outlines the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK, describes adverse effects for adult and child survivor-victims, and synthesizes evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to (i) prevent IPV, (ii) identify IPV, (iii) support adults and children affected by IPV, and (iv) treat perpetrators. Prevention covers school- and community-based dating violence prevention as well as media/educational campaigns and home visiting. Identification covers activity in hvealthcare and other services. Interventions for victim-survivors include advocacy, skill-building, counselling, therapy, and groups, and cover both adults and children. Treatments for perpetrators include group and individual and therapeutic and non-therapeutic approaches. The chapter closes with recommendations for practice.

PROTOCOL: Technology‐based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A meta‐analysis and systematic review

“…Outcomes may be measured using self‐ or partner‐reports, as well as with validated instruments. Common examples of validated instruments may include, Revised Conflicts Tactics Scale (CTS‐2; see Straus, Hamby, Boney‐McCoy, & Sugarman, 1996), the Center for Epidemiologic Studies‐Depression (CES‐D; see Radloff, 1977, or CES‐D revised, see Eaton, Smith, Ybarra, Muntaner, & Tien, 2004) and the PTSD Checklist (Blanchard, Jones‐Alexander, Buckley, & Forneris, 1996); and the DA tool (Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Glass, 2009); all with strong convergent validity to other similar measures. We will report psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of outcome measurement instruments.…”

“…Digital interventions may be used for added functions, such as safety planning, digital consultation, referral‐to‐care, psychoeducation, prevention of IPV and related morbidities, but must ultimately target mental health outcomes that are measured in each study. For example, the study by Koziol‐McLain et al (2018) used a three‐component decision aid intervention, involving (a) safety priority setting activities in a multicriteria decision model; (b) accessed risk awareness using the DA (Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Glass, 2009) or DA‐Revised (for females in same‐sex relationships); and (c) created an individual tailored safety plan (Koziol‐McLain et al, 2018).…”

“…In others, the control group may receive traditional modalities such as face-to-face counseling (i.e., enhanced usual care) by a healthcare provider (Constantino et al, 2015). & Forneris, 1996); and the DA tool (Campbell, 2002;Campbell & Glass, 2009); all with strong convergent validity to other similar measures. We will report psychometric properties (validity and reliability) of outcome measurement instruments.…”

“…Its theoretical underpinning stems from the decisional conflict model using an empowerment approach to raise awareness of violence severity and then create a safety plan (Dutton, Goodman, & Bennett, 1999; Eden et al, 2015; Glass et al, 2008; Glass et al, 2017). In sum, the myPlan app (a) educates the survivor on relationship red flags; (b) estimates their level of danger (i.e., abuse severity) and risk for fatality using a weighted scoring protocol called the Danger Assessment (DA) tool (Campbell, 2002; Campbell & Glass, 2009); (c) estimates priorities for safety (e.g., child's welfare) using pairwise comparisons of priorities; (d) creates a checklist of tailored safety planning; (e) designs a tailored safety plan based on the survivor's level of danger and priorities; and ultimately (f) triages the victim‐survivor to trusted resources based on some consideration of their social ecology (Glass et al, 2010).…”