Universal Informatics · Research reading room

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

Tirado-Muñoz J; Gilchrist G; Farré M; Hegarty K; Torrens M · Annals of medicine · 2014 · Systematic review and meta-analysis

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

CBT and advocacy were associated with reduced physical and psychological IPV, but not sexual IPV or the composite of any IPV.

Recorded limitations

Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.

Evidence and provenance

Chapter Trust Factor uses a minimum of three distinct qualifying studies. Publication records retain their own evidence and assessment.

Study design and assessment
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
assessment
category
review
is Randomized Controlled Trial
false
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

review Scope
abstract
trust Factor
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
1
randomized Controlled Trial
false
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-applicable
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
1
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
jadad
status
not-applicable
score
Not recorded
evidence
evidence Type
Systematic review and meta-analysis
intervention
Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Controls across included randomized trials
sample
12 RCTs; 2666 participants
measurement
Physical IPV with CBT; Psychological IPV with CBT; Any IPV with CBT
timing
Study-specific
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Physical IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    Favored CBT
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.79
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.26 to -0.33
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Psychological IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    Favored CBT
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.80
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.25 to -0.36
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    Any IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    SMD 0.09
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.05 to 0.23
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
jadad
not applicable
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
Women who experienced IPV
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women who experienced ipv.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
Topics and recorded topic scores
  1. key
    language:domestic-family-violence
    title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    collection
    language
    trust Score
    2
Citation snapshot and identifiers
id
dv-reviews-25211469
doi
10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
pmid
25211469
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
citations By Collection
language
Not recorded
Complete approved library record
publication Approval
status
approved-for-publication
approved By
Ben Korbel
approved At
2026-11-01
assessment
AI assessed; human approved for publication
scope
Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
source Revision
audit-r2-8fea56623c3b
source Content Hash
8fea56623c3b95ac92dc067652c19b2eac686c657ca548de18e2ad7f63e95c33
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
editorial Audit
auditor
Codex (AI)
completed At
2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
prior Content Hash
13daeb8a8632031c70a3c835f9ecad22e541b4395e4456b354850c010b0e07fb
prior Revision
r1-13daeb8a8632
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-25211469
doi
10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
pmid
25211469
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
ac4a7f95004abc73c7abdae0d8d72c88b0eb958a7ff6618a830ba97aa84f8e5e
claim Check
Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

applied Proposals
None recorded
method
AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
limitations

Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

study Family Id
review:25211469
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-25211469
aliases
None recorded
title
The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy interventions for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
journal
Annals of medicine
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2014
authors
Tirado-Muñoz J; Gilchrist G; Farré M; Hegarty K; Torrens M
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
kind
Review
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
pmid
25211469
urls

https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890.2014.941918 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
CBT and advocacy were associated with reduced physical and psychological IPV, but not sexual IPV or the composite of any IPV.
limitation
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
citation Count
Not recorded
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
study Design Assessment
category
review
is Randomized Controlled Trial
false
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

review Scope
abstract
paper Trust Assessment
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
1
randomized Controlled Trial
false
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-applicable
basis
Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
1
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
citations By Collection
language
Not recorded
topics
  1. key
    language:domestic-family-violence
    title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    collection
    language
    trust Score
    2
journal Key
annalsofmedicine
journal Label
Annals of medicine
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-25211469
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy interventions for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    authors
    Tirado-Muñoz J; Gilchrist G; Farré M; Hegarty K; Torrens M
    year
    2014
    journal
    Annals of medicine
    doi
    10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
    pmid
    25211469
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.3109/07853890.2014.941918 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    collections

    language

    categories

    Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

    targets
    None recorded
    neurotransmitters
    None recorded
    conditions
    None recorded
    condition Evidence
    None recorded
    age Groups

    adults

    age Population
    record Id
    dv-reviews-25211469
    collections

    language

    groups

    adults

    reported Ages
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    youth Source Note
    Not recorded
    source URL
    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469
    basis Type
    source-limited-ai-editorial-assessment
    classification Note
    Original age terms: adults. Programme targets or possible eligibility are not counted as observed ages.
    community Matches
    1. category Id
      domestic-violence
      relation
      direct
    kind
    Review
    design
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    CBT and advocacy were associated with reduced physical and psychological IPV, but not sexual IPV or the composite of any IPV.
    summary
    CBT and advocacy were associated with reduced physical and psychological IPV, but not sexual IPV or the composite of any IPV.
    limitation
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    intervention
    Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Controls across included randomized trials
    sample
    12 RCTs; 2666 participants
    measurement
    Physical IPV with CBT; Psychological IPV with CBT; Any IPV with CBT
    timing
    Study-specific
    trial Id
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.79
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.26 to -0.33
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Psychological IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.80
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.25 to -0.36
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Any IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      SMD 0.09
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.05 to 0.23
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    jadad
    not applicable
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Women who experienced IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women who experienced ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    review Scope
    abstract
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    1
    randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-applicable
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    review Scope
    abstract
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    1
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    rating Scale
    library-trust-factor/1-3
    jadad
    status
    not-applicable
    score
    Not recorded
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    citation Count
    Not recorded
    publication Approval
    status
    approved-for-publication
    approved By
    Ben Korbel
    approved At
    2026-11-01
    assessment
    AI assessed; human approved for publication
    scope
    Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
    source Revision
    audit-r2-8fea56623c3b
    source Content Hash
    8fea56623c3b95ac92dc067652c19b2eac686c657ca548de18e2ad7f63e95c33
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    review:25211469
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-25211469
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    13daeb8a8632031c70a3c835f9ecad22e541b4395e4456b354850c010b0e07fb
    prior Revision
    r1-13daeb8a8632
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-25211469
    doi
    10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
    pmid
    25211469
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ac4a7f95004abc73c7abdae0d8d72c88b0eb958a7ff6618a830ba97aa84f8e5e
    claim Check
    Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    applied Proposals
    None recorded
    method
    AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
    limitations

    Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

    assessment Record
    id
    dv-reviews-25211469
    title
    The efficacy of cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy interventions for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
    authors

    Tirado-Muñoz J · Gilchrist G · Farré M · Hegarty K · Torrens M

    year
    2014
    journal
    Annals of medicine
    doi
    10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
    pmid
    25211469
    trial Registration
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately
    publication Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    study Family Id
    review:25211469
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    false
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Women who experienced IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women who experienced ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    setting
    Multiple study settings; distribution not established from abstract.
    sample Size
    randomized
    Not recorded
    analyzed
    Not recorded
    description
    12 RCTs; 2666 participants
    intervention
    description
    Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Controls across included randomized trials
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.79
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.26 to -0.33
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Psychological IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.80
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.25 to -0.36
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Any IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      SMD 0.09
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.05 to 0.23
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    CBT and advocacy were associated with reduced physical and psychological IPV, but not sexual IPV or the composite of any IPV.
    limitation
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    design
    type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    randomization Evidence
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    masking
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    crosses
    0
    cross Rationale
    Evidence synthesis receives no trial-design crosses.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    jadad
    not applicable
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469
      type
      Europe PMC indexed publication metadata and abstract
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      PMID, DOI, title, journal and authors reconciled within the indexed source; full-text appraisal not claimed.
    2. url
      https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:08.294213+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      DOI and normalized title match the Europe PMC record. Bibliographic verification only; not a full-text review.
    publication Status
    status
    Published journal article
    correction Retraction Check
    Europe PMC publication types and Crossref relation/update metadata checked. No retraction indicator found in these records.
    uncertainty
    Metadata checks do not guarantee absence of all notices or later changes.
    recommendation Rationale
    Assesses CBT and advocacy for women who experienced IPV, distinguishing physical and psychological outcomes from null sexual and composite IPV outcomes.
    review
    status
    pending
    reviewer
    Not recorded
    assessment Status
    assessed
    assessment Notes
    Abstract-level structured assessment; missing fields are explicit. Review evidence is not counted as additional independent trials.
    identity Verification
    status
    cross-source-verified
    fields

    DOI · title

    limitation
    Not recorded
    source Evidence Hashes
    crossref SHA256
    dda4071be4b0e70ce6fc5e0f61124f6e30f5a3a4bef0fb01187d3977277ede8f
    review Readiness
    ai-editorial-audit-complete-release-pending
    review Ready
    true
    research Lane
    reviews-prevention
    publication Recommendation
    status
    recommended-summary
    reason
    Suitable as a qualified research-library summary at the stated source-access level. This is not a conclusion that the intervention is effective or safe.
    scope
    Research summary only; no treatment recommendation
    human Release Approval
    false
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    13daeb8a8632031c70a3c835f9ecad22e541b4395e4456b354850c010b0e07fb
    prior Revision
    r1-13daeb8a8632
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-25211469
    doi
    10.3109/07853890.2014.941918
    pmid
    25211469
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ac4a7f95004abc73c7abdae0d8d72c88b0eb958a7ff6618a830ba97aa84f8e5e
    claim Check
    Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    applied Proposals
    None recorded
    method
    AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
    limitations

    Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    review Scope
    abstract
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    1
    randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-applicable
    basis
    Evidence synthesis receives no trial-design crosses.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3109%2F07853890.2014.941918

    review Scope
    abstract
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    0
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    jadad
    status
    not-applicable
    score
    Not recorded
    evidence
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Women who experienced IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women who experienced ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
    intervention
    description
    Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Controls across included randomized trials
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.79
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.26 to -0.33
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Psychological IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      Favored CBT
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.80
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.25 to -0.36
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Any IPV with CBT
      follow Up
      Study-specific
      result
      No clear effect
      effect Estimate
      SMD 0.09
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.05 to 0.23
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    provenance
    Discovered by AI
    content Hash
    8fea56623c3b95ac92dc067652c19b2eac686c657ca548de18e2ad7f63e95c33
    revision
    audit-r2-8fea56623c3b
    archive Entries
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    chapter Number
    5
    topic Id
    domestic-family-violence
    topic Title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    trust Score
    2
evidence
evidence Type
Systematic review and meta-analysis
intervention
Cognitive behavioural therapy and advocacy, analyzed separately Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Controls across included randomized trials
sample
12 RCTs; 2666 participants
measurement
Physical IPV with CBT; Psychological IPV with CBT; Any IPV with CBT
timing
Study-specific
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/25211469 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25211469/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Physical IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    Favored CBT
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.79
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.26 to -0.33
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Psychological IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    Favored CBT
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.80
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.25 to -0.36
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    Any IPV with CBT
    follow Up
    Study-specific
    result
    No clear effect
    effect Estimate
    SMD 0.09
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.05 to 0.23
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
jadad
not applicable
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Not established from accessed abstract.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
Women who experienced IPV
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women who experienced ipv.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Small study base and heterogeneous interventions. The pooled CBT effect is not transferable to every talking therapy.
jadad
status
not-applicable
score
Not recorded
condition Evidence
None recorded
conditions
None recorded
topic Trust Scores

2

full Text
status
not-indexed
retrieval Available
false

Open this publication in the interactive library