Universal Informatics · Research reading room

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of the Strength at Home Men's Program for Partner Violence in Military Veterans.

Taft CT; Macdonald A; Creech SK; Monson CM; Murphy CM · The Journal of clinical psychiatry · 2016 · Randomized controlled trial

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

Modeled physical and psychological IPV trajectories favored SAH-M. Immediate post-treatment benefit was clearer; the later physical-recidivism comparison was not statistically significant.

Recorded limitations

Selected male military/veteran population; incomplete follow-up, limited collateral coverage, and referral comparator. The later physical-violence comparison was inconclusive.

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
Randomized controlled trial
assessment
category
rct
is Randomized Controlled Trial
true
basis
After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

review Scope
selected-methods
trust Factor
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

review Scope
selected-methods
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
jadad
status
unassessed
score
Not recorded
evidence
evidence Type
Randomized controlled trial
intervention
Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme 12 weekly two-hour closed-group sessions
comparator
Enhanced treatment as usual with mental-health and IPV-service referrals
sample
135 men in longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses: SAH-M67, ETAU68; 111 partners supplied collateral information. Follow-up observations were incomplete.
measurement
Physical IPV trajectory; Psychological IPV trajectory; Physical recidivism; Physical recidivism; Physical IPV between-group effect; Psychological IPV between-group effect; Emotional-abuse subdomains
timing
Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline); Same three assessments; Post-treatment; 3months after treatment (~6months after baseline); Final follow-up; Across assessments
trial Id
NCT01435512
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

retrieved At
2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Physical IPV trajectory
    follow Up
    Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline)
    result
    Modeled change favored SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    Time-by-condition beta=-0.135
    uncertainty
    SE0.061;p=.029
    primary Status
    Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
  2. name
    Psychological IPV trajectory
    follow Up
    Same three assessments
    result
    Modeled change favored SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    Time-by-condition beta=-0.304
    uncertainty
    SE0.135;p=.026
    primary Status
    Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
  3. name
    Physical recidivism
    follow Up
    Post-treatment
    result
    Lower with SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    23.3% SAH-M versus43.3% ETAU
    uncertainty
    p=.02
    primary Status
    Additional analysis
  4. name
    Physical recidivism
    follow Up
    3months after treatment (~6months after baseline)
    result
    No statistically clear between-group difference
    effect Estimate
    18.5% SAH-M versus26.7% ETAU
    uncertainty
    p=.30; not proof of equivalence
    primary Status
    Additional analysis
  5. name
    Physical IPV between-group effect
    follow Up
    Final follow-up
    result
    Interval includes no difference
    effect Estimate
    Hedges g=0.002
    uncertainty
    95%CI -0.36 to0.37
    primary Status
    Additional cross-sectional analysis
  6. name
    Psychological IPV between-group effect
    follow Up
    Final follow-up
    result
    Interval includes no difference
    effect Estimate
    Hedges g=0.27
    uncertainty
    95%CI -0.10 to0.64
    primary Status
    Additional cross-sectional analysis
  7. name
    Emotional-abuse subdomains
    follow Up
    Across assessments
    result
    Restrictive engulfment favored SAH-M; denigration, hostility and dominance ITT interactions were not significant
    effect Estimate
    Restrictive engulfment beta=-0.072
    uncertainty
    p=.010; respective null-domain p=.450,.215,.674
    primary Status
    Secondary domain analyses
quality
risk Of Bias
Random-number allocation verified; concealment and participant masking unclear. Differential follow-up loss and incomplete partner data remain concerns. No formal RoB2 appraisal completed.
attrition
SAH-M/ETAU assessments:49/67 versus56/68 post-treatment,45/67 versus58/68 at final follow-up. SAH-M treatment completion37/67; ITT includes135.
confounding
ETAU included referrals, check-ins and other care. Authors discuss possible unequal court monitoring at follow-up. Registry wait-list wording does not adequately describe the published comparator.
adverse Findings
Registry records0 deaths,0 serious and0 other adverse events in each arm, without collection-method/timeframe details. The paper provides safety procedures but no formal harms table; zero recorded events does not establish safety.
transfer Limits
Eligibility excluded active substance dependence outside remission, uncontrolled bipolar/psychotic disorder, and severe cognitive impairment. Generalization beyond male veterans/service members is limited.
jadad
not established
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
135 male veterans/service members using IPV; 111 female partners also assessed
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies 135 male veterans/service members using ipv; 111 female partners also assessed.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
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-26613288
doi
10.4088/jcp.15m10020
pmid
26613288
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-f0d5bcb03985
source Content Hash
f0d5bcb03985398ea078184e03a3f2611bcb2331bf34b53b18cb41d861551953
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

retrieved At
2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
editorial Audit
auditor
Codex (AI)
completed At
2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
prior Content Hash
fb0f4c8fda3186fe50225d2b466b471a07fa1573d0e70ae3063dae9aa52ccc29
prior Revision
r1-fb0f4c8fda31
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-26613288
doi
10.4088/jcp.15m10020
pmid
26613288
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
eea9f14d312a558f2d66b7f5e5ab4b7c6aa8e7fd3c713e94745eed4ad4db379f
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/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020

applied Proposals

methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

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
NCT01435512
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-26613288
aliases
None recorded
title
A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of the Strength at Home Men's Program for Partner Violence in Military Veterans.
journal
The Journal of clinical psychiatry
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2016
authors
Taft CT; Macdonald A; Creech SK; Monson CM; Murphy CM
design
Randomized controlled trial
kind
Journal article
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.4088/jcp.15m10020
pmid
26613288
urls

https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.15m10020 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Modeled physical and psychological IPV trajectories favored SAH-M. Immediate post-treatment benefit was clearer; the later physical-recidivism comparison was not statistically significant.
limitation
Selected male military/veteran population; incomplete follow-up, limited collateral coverage, and referral comparator. The later physical-violence comparison was inconclusive.
citation Count
Not recorded
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
study Design Assessment
category
rct
is Randomized Controlled Trial
true
basis
After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

review Scope
selected-methods
paper Trust Assessment
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

review Scope
selected-methods
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
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
journalofclinicalpsychiatry
journal Label
The Journal of clinical psychiatry
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-26613288
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of the Strength at Home Men's Program for Partner Violence in Military Veterans.
    authors
    Taft CT; Macdonald A; Creech SK; Monson CM; Murphy CM
    year
    2016
    journal
    The Journal of clinical psychiatry
    doi
    10.4088/jcp.15m10020
    pmid
    26613288
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.15m10020 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    collections

    language

    categories

    Clinical & self-report

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

    adults

    age Population
    record Id
    dv-reviews-26613288
    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/26613288
    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
    2. category Id
      defence
      relation
      direct
    kind
    Journal article
    design
    Randomized controlled trial
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    Modeled physical and psychological IPV trajectories favored SAH-M. Immediate post-treatment benefit was clearer; the later physical-recidivism comparison was not statistically significant.
    summary
    Modeled physical and psychological IPV trajectories favored SAH-M. Immediate post-treatment benefit was clearer; the later physical-recidivism comparison was not statistically significant.
    limitation
    Selected male military/veteran population; incomplete follow-up, limited collateral coverage, and referral comparator. The later physical-violence comparison was inconclusive.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Randomized controlled trial
    intervention
    Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme 12 weekly two-hour closed-group sessions
    comparator
    Enhanced treatment as usual with mental-health and IPV-service referrals
    sample
    135 men in longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses: SAH-M67, ETAU68; 111 partners supplied collateral information. Follow-up observations were incomplete.
    measurement
    Physical IPV trajectory; Psychological IPV trajectory; Physical recidivism; Physical recidivism; Physical IPV between-group effect; Psychological IPV between-group effect; Emotional-abuse subdomains
    timing
    Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline); Same three assessments; Post-treatment; 3months after treatment (~6months after baseline); Final follow-up; Across assessments
    trial Id
    NCT01435512
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline)
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.135
      uncertainty
      SE0.061;p=.029
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    2. name
      Psychological IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Same three assessments
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.304
      uncertainty
      SE0.135;p=.026
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    3. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      Post-treatment
      result
      Lower with SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      23.3% SAH-M versus43.3% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.02
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    4. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      3months after treatment (~6months after baseline)
      result
      No statistically clear between-group difference
      effect Estimate
      18.5% SAH-M versus26.7% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.30; not proof of equivalence
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    5. name
      Physical IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.002
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.36 to0.37
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    6. name
      Psychological IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.27
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.10 to0.64
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    7. name
      Emotional-abuse subdomains
      follow Up
      Across assessments
      result
      Restrictive engulfment favored SAH-M; denigration, hostility and dominance ITT interactions were not significant
      effect Estimate
      Restrictive engulfment beta=-0.072
      uncertainty
      p=.010; respective null-domain p=.450,.215,.674
      primary Status
      Secondary domain analyses
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Random-number allocation verified; concealment and participant masking unclear. Differential follow-up loss and incomplete partner data remain concerns. No formal RoB2 appraisal completed.
    attrition
    SAH-M/ETAU assessments:49/67 versus56/68 post-treatment,45/67 versus58/68 at final follow-up. SAH-M treatment completion37/67; ITT includes135.
    confounding
    ETAU included referrals, check-ins and other care. Authors discuss possible unequal court monitoring at follow-up. Registry wait-list wording does not adequately describe the published comparator.
    adverse Findings
    Registry records0 deaths,0 serious and0 other adverse events in each arm, without collection-method/timeframe details. The paper provides safety procedures but no formal harms table; zero recorded events does not establish safety.
    transfer Limits
    Eligibility excluded active substance dependence outside remission, uncontrolled bipolar/psychotic disorder, and severe cognitive impairment. Generalization beyond male veterans/service members is limited.
    jadad
    not established
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    135 male veterans/service members using IPV; 111 female partners also assessed
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies 135 male veterans/service members using ipv; 111 female partners also assessed.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    rct
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    basis
    After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    2
    randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-confirmed
    basis
    After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    2
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    rating Scale
    library-trust-factor/1-3
    jadad
    status
    unassessed
    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-f0d5bcb03985
    source Content Hash
    f0d5bcb03985398ea078184e03a3f2611bcb2331bf34b53b18cb41d861551953
    source Access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
    study Family Id
    NCT01435512
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-26613288
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    fb0f4c8fda3186fe50225d2b466b471a07fa1573d0e70ae3063dae9aa52ccc29
    prior Revision
    r1-fb0f4c8fda31
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-26613288
    doi
    10.4088/jcp.15m10020
    pmid
    26613288
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    eea9f14d312a558f2d66b7f5e5ab4b7c6aa8e7fd3c713e94745eed4ad4db379f
    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/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020

    applied Proposals

    methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

    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-26613288
    title
    A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of the Strength at Home Men's Program for Partner Violence in Military Veterans.
    authors

    Taft CT · Macdonald A · Creech SK · Monson CM · Murphy CM

    year
    2016
    journal
    The Journal of clinical psychiatry
    doi
    10.4088/jcp.15m10020
    pmid
    26613288
    trial Registration

    NCT01435512

    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme
    publication Type
    Randomized controlled trial
    study Family Id
    NCT01435512
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    true
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    135 male veterans/service members using IPV; 111 female partners also assessed
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies 135 male veterans/service members using ipv; 111 female partners also assessed.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    United States
    setting
    Two Department of Veterans Affairs hospitals
    sample Size
    randomized
    135
    analyzed
    135
    description
    135 men in longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses: SAH-M67, ETAU68; 111 partners supplied collateral information. Follow-up observations were incomplete.
    unit
    men
    intervention
    description
    Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme
    dose
    12 weekly two-hour closed-group sessions
    provider
    Two co-leaders: one doctoral-level male therapist and one doctoral/pre-doctoral female therapist
    comparator
    Enhanced treatment as usual with mental-health and IPV-service referrals
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline)
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.135
      uncertainty
      SE0.061;p=.029
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    2. name
      Psychological IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Same three assessments
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.304
      uncertainty
      SE0.135;p=.026
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    3. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      Post-treatment
      result
      Lower with SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      23.3% SAH-M versus43.3% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.02
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    4. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      3months after treatment (~6months after baseline)
      result
      No statistically clear between-group difference
      effect Estimate
      18.5% SAH-M versus26.7% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.30; not proof of equivalence
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    5. name
      Physical IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.002
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.36 to0.37
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    6. name
      Psychological IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.27
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.10 to0.64
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    7. name
      Emotional-abuse subdomains
      follow Up
      Across assessments
      result
      Restrictive engulfment favored SAH-M; denigration, hostility and dominance ITT interactions were not significant
      effect Estimate
      Restrictive engulfment beta=-0.072
      uncertainty
      p=.010; respective null-domain p=.450,.215,.674
      primary Status
      Secondary domain analyses
    finding
    Modeled physical and psychological IPV trajectories favored SAH-M. Immediate post-treatment benefit was clearer; the later physical-recidivism comparison was not statistically significant.
    limitation
    Selected male military/veteran population; incomplete follow-up, limited collateral coverage, and referral comparator. The later physical-violence comparison was inconclusive.
    design
    type
    Randomized controlled trial
    randomization Evidence
    After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
    masking
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    crosses
    1
    cross Rationale
    Random allocation is explicitly described; double blinding not established.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Random-number allocation verified; concealment and participant masking unclear. Differential follow-up loss and incomplete partner data remain concerns. No formal RoB2 appraisal completed.
    attrition
    SAH-M/ETAU assessments:49/67 versus56/68 post-treatment,45/67 versus58/68 at final follow-up. SAH-M treatment completion37/67; ITT includes135.
    confounding
    ETAU included referrals, check-ins and other care. Authors discuss possible unequal court monitoring at follow-up. Registry wait-list wording does not adequately describe the published comparator.
    adverse Findings
    Registry records0 deaths,0 serious and0 other adverse events in each arm, without collection-method/timeframe details. The paper provides safety procedures but no formal harms table; zero recorded events does not establish safety.
    transfer Limits
    Eligibility excluded active substance dependence outside remission, uncontrolled bipolar/psychotic disorder, and severe cognitive impairment. Generalization beyond male veterans/service members is limited.
    jadad
    not established
    access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288
      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/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:07.227813+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      DOI and normalized title match the Europe PMC record. Bibliographic verification only; not a full-text review.
    3. url
      https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf
      type
      Published article on programme-developer site
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      DOI/title match; methods/results text inspected. No local PDF or visual table verification.
    4. url
      https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512
      type
      ClinicalTrials.gov linked record and results
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      Paper and registry link NCT01435512/PMID26613288. Registration, harms and flow wording reconciled cautiously.
    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
    Contributes randomized evidence for a trauma-informed group intervention with military men who use IPV.
    review
    status
    pending
    reviewer
    Not recorded
    assessment Status
    assessed
    assessment Notes
    Published methods/results and linked registry inspected. Registry first submission2009-08-06; first public post2011-09-16, after paper recruitment began February2010. Registry completion135 must not be read as135 observed at final follow-up. Partner assessments included privacy checks, safety planning and emergency/referral resources. One RCT cross retained; Jadad not established.
    identity Verification
    status
    cross-source-verified
    fields

    DOI · title

    limitation
    Not recorded
    source Evidence Hashes
    crossref SHA256
    3aac07f70088b6db5e3f5f88ddc884c95a4cfcca4641e8d4e4b129cc93239d0c
    review Readiness
    ai-editorial-audit-complete-release-pending
    review Ready
    true
    research Lane
    reviews-prevention
    later Review Evidence
    id
    dv-reviews-26613288
    title
    A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of the Strength at Home Men's Program for Partner Violence in Military Veterans.
    prior Revision
    r1-fb0f4c8fda31
    prior Content Hash
    fb0f4c8fda3186fe50225d2b466b471a07fa1573d0e70ae3063dae9aa52ccc29
    original
    review Ready
    true
    review Readiness
    ready-with-explicit-access-limits
    finding
    Strength at Home Men produced greater reductions in physical and psychological IPV than enhanced usual care through six months.
    limitation
    A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    crosses
    1
    access
    abstract
    action
    amend
    hold Current Revision
    true
    cross Verification On Hold
    false
    new Evidence
    Immediate physical recidivism was 23.3% versus 43.3% (p=.02); at the later assessment, about six months from baseline, it was 18.5% versus 26.7% (p=.30). Final physical-IPV Hedges g was 0.002 (95% CI −0.36 to 0.37).
    revised Interpretation
    Modeled IPV trajectories favored treatment, but the immediate effect must not be presented as established comparative benefit on all outcomes through six months.
    required Before Approval
    Replace the broad durability claim in a separately hashed revision before approval. No additional source is required to make this wording correction.
    source URLs

    https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf

    source Location
    Results and Tables 2–4, pp. 1172–1174
    assessment Changed
    false
    human Approval
    false
    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
    fb0f4c8fda3186fe50225d2b466b471a07fa1573d0e70ae3063dae9aa52ccc29
    prior Revision
    r1-fb0f4c8fda31
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-26613288
    doi
    10.4088/jcp.15m10020
    pmid
    26613288
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    eea9f14d312a558f2d66b7f5e5ab4b7c6aa8e7fd3c713e94745eed4ad4db379f
    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/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020

    applied Proposals

    methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

    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
    rct
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    basis
    After baseline assessment, blocks of4–5 men were allocated with a random-number generator.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    2
    randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-confirmed
    basis
    Random allocation is explicitly described; double blinding not established.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.4088%2Fjcp.15m10020 · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    1
    masking Roles
    participants
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    providers
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    assessors
    Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
    analysts
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    jadad
    status
    unassessed
    score
    Not recorded
    evidence
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    135 male veterans/service members using IPV; 111 female partners also assessed
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies 135 male veterans/service members using ipv; 111 female partners also assessed.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
    intervention
    description
    Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme
    dose
    12 weekly two-hour closed-group sessions
    provider
    Two co-leaders: one doctoral-level male therapist and one doctoral/pre-doctoral female therapist
    comparator
    Enhanced treatment as usual with mental-health and IPV-service referrals
    outcomes
    1. name
      Physical IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline)
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.135
      uncertainty
      SE0.061;p=.029
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    2. name
      Psychological IPV trajectory
      follow Up
      Same three assessments
      result
      Modeled change favored SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      Time-by-condition beta=-0.304
      uncertainty
      SE0.135;p=.026
      primary Status
      Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
    3. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      Post-treatment
      result
      Lower with SAH-M
      effect Estimate
      23.3% SAH-M versus43.3% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.02
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    4. name
      Physical recidivism
      follow Up
      3months after treatment (~6months after baseline)
      result
      No statistically clear between-group difference
      effect Estimate
      18.5% SAH-M versus26.7% ETAU
      uncertainty
      p=.30; not proof of equivalence
      primary Status
      Additional analysis
    5. name
      Physical IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.002
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.36 to0.37
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    6. name
      Psychological IPV between-group effect
      follow Up
      Final follow-up
      result
      Interval includes no difference
      effect Estimate
      Hedges g=0.27
      uncertainty
      95%CI -0.10 to0.64
      primary Status
      Additional cross-sectional analysis
    7. name
      Emotional-abuse subdomains
      follow Up
      Across assessments
      result
      Restrictive engulfment favored SAH-M; denigration, hostility and dominance ITT interactions were not significant
      effect Estimate
      Restrictive engulfment beta=-0.072
      uncertainty
      p=.010; respective null-domain p=.450,.215,.674
      primary Status
      Secondary domain analyses
    access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    provenance
    Discovered by AI
    content Hash
    f0d5bcb03985398ea078184e03a3f2611bcb2331bf34b53b18cb41d861551953
    revision
    audit-r2-f0d5bcb03985
    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
Randomized controlled trial
intervention
Strength at Home Men: trauma-informed group programme 12 weekly two-hour closed-group sessions
comparator
Enhanced treatment as usual with mental-health and IPV-service referrals
sample
135 men in longitudinal intention-to-treat analyses: SAH-M67, ETAU68; 111 partners supplied collateral information. Follow-up observations were incomplete.
measurement
Physical IPV trajectory; Psychological IPV trajectory; Physical recidivism; Physical recidivism; Physical IPV between-group effect; Psychological IPV between-group effect; Emotional-abuse subdomains
timing
Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline); Same three assessments; Post-treatment; 3months after treatment (~6months after baseline); Final follow-up; Across assessments
trial Id
NCT01435512
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/26613288 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26613288/ · https://strengthathome.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/RCT-for-SAH-Mens-Program-2016.pdf · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT01435512

retrieved At
2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Physical IPV trajectory
    follow Up
    Baseline, post-treatment (~3months), final follow-up (~6months from baseline)
    result
    Modeled change favored SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    Time-by-condition beta=-0.135
    uncertainty
    SE0.061;p=.029
    primary Status
    Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
  2. name
    Psychological IPV trajectory
    follow Up
    Same three assessments
    result
    Modeled change favored SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    Time-by-condition beta=-0.304
    uncertainty
    SE0.135;p=.026
    primary Status
    Primary domain in linked registry; prospective specification not established
  3. name
    Physical recidivism
    follow Up
    Post-treatment
    result
    Lower with SAH-M
    effect Estimate
    23.3% SAH-M versus43.3% ETAU
    uncertainty
    p=.02
    primary Status
    Additional analysis
  4. name
    Physical recidivism
    follow Up
    3months after treatment (~6months after baseline)
    result
    No statistically clear between-group difference
    effect Estimate
    18.5% SAH-M versus26.7% ETAU
    uncertainty
    p=.30; not proof of equivalence
    primary Status
    Additional analysis
  5. name
    Physical IPV between-group effect
    follow Up
    Final follow-up
    result
    Interval includes no difference
    effect Estimate
    Hedges g=0.002
    uncertainty
    95%CI -0.36 to0.37
    primary Status
    Additional cross-sectional analysis
  6. name
    Psychological IPV between-group effect
    follow Up
    Final follow-up
    result
    Interval includes no difference
    effect Estimate
    Hedges g=0.27
    uncertainty
    95%CI -0.10 to0.64
    primary Status
    Additional cross-sectional analysis
  7. name
    Emotional-abuse subdomains
    follow Up
    Across assessments
    result
    Restrictive engulfment favored SAH-M; denigration, hostility and dominance ITT interactions were not significant
    effect Estimate
    Restrictive engulfment beta=-0.072
    uncertainty
    p=.010; respective null-domain p=.450,.215,.674
    primary Status
    Secondary domain analyses
quality
risk Of Bias
Random-number allocation verified; concealment and participant masking unclear. Differential follow-up loss and incomplete partner data remain concerns. No formal RoB2 appraisal completed.
attrition
SAH-M/ETAU assessments:49/67 versus56/68 post-treatment,45/67 versus58/68 at final follow-up. SAH-M treatment completion37/67; ITT includes135.
confounding
ETAU included referrals, check-ins and other care. Authors discuss possible unequal court monitoring at follow-up. Registry wait-list wording does not adequately describe the published comparator.
adverse Findings
Registry records0 deaths,0 serious and0 other adverse events in each arm, without collection-method/timeframe details. The paper provides safety procedures but no formal harms table; zero recorded events does not establish safety.
transfer Limits
Eligibility excluded active substance dependence outside remission, uncontrolled bipolar/psychotic disorder, and severe cognitive impairment. Generalization beyond male veterans/service members is limited.
jadad
not established
masking Roles
participants
Not established from accessed abstract.
providers
Not established from accessed abstract.
assessors
Registry reports outcome-assessor masking. The paper describes assessors separate from treating clinicians but does not explicitly confirm masked allocation.
analysts
Not established from accessed abstract.
population
relation
direct
population
135 male veterans/service members using IPV; 111 female partners also assessed
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies 135 male veterans/service members using ipv; 111 female partners also assessed.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
A veteran/service-member sample and referral comparator limit generalization; masking and attrition not established from abstract.
jadad
status
unassessed
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