Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment in Community Health Facilities: A Multisite Longitudinal Study

Abstract

Violence against women is a public health problem that cuts across all societies, education and socioeconomic levels, and ethnic and cultural groups (Heise & García-Moreno, 2002). Intimate partner violence (IPV) is one expression of violence against women. In low-and middle-income countries of the Americas, IPV prevalence among ever-partnered women is around 30% (2013), and in some countries it reaches 50% (Bott, Guedes, Goodwin, & Mendoza, 2012). In this paper, IPV is defined as any actual, attempted, or threatened physical harm h t t p : / / j o u r n a l s. c o p m a d r i d. o rg / p i

Identifying Key Predictors of Recidivism among Offenders Attending a Batterer Intervention Program: A Survival Analysis

“…Although in our study we did not use IPVAW offender typologies, those participants with higher scores in risk of future violence against non-partners could be classified as generally violent/ antisocial . Our results support the idea that risk assessment and management of those generally violent participants should be a key intervention target to improve BIP effectiveness (Arbach & Bobbio, 2018;Bowen, 2011;Cantos, Kosson, Goldstein, & O'Leary, 2019;López-Ossorio et al, 2018;Snead, Bennett, & Babcock, 2018).…”

The Importance of Considering Alexithymia during Initial Stages of Intimate Partner Violence Interventions to Design Adjuvant Treatments

“…Hence, alexithymia itself is not enough to completely predict dropout and reoffending. In this sense, several studies have stated the importance of considering several subtypes of IPVAW perpetrators with different cognitive characteristics and, in turn, therapeutic needs [19,30,31,32,33]. Our data reinforces this conclusion and strengthens the need to analyze alexithymia in IPVAW perpetrator subtypes.…”

Motivational Strategies in Interventions for Intimate Partner Violence Offenders: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

“…Relatedly, the low number of studies included in the meta-analysis implies that the results should be considered with caution. Also, the outcomes considered (men's self-reported physical and psychological IPV or official recidivism) to report change in behavior or effectiveness could raise concerns about whether we are measuring IPV offender treatment 'success' too narrowly without accurately reflecting relevant changes in any controlling or coercive behaviors, repeating victimization, or whether women/children feel safer (Arbach & Bobbio, 2018;Dobash et al, 1999;Hester & Westmarland, 2005). Also, self-report measures of physical and psychological IPV can be vulnerable to participants' distortions and social desirability biases (Eckhardt et al, 2012;Gracia et al, 2015;Santirso et al, 2018).…”