Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a systematic review.

Nesset MB; Lara-Cabrera ML; Dalsbø TK; Pedersen SA; Bjørngaard JH; Palmstierna T · BMC psychiatry · 2019 · Systematic review

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

Several RCTs reported improvement, but the review judged evidence insufficient to confirm benefit; the nonrandomized studies found no detectable effect.

Recorded limitations

Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.

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

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

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
intervention
Group cognitive behavioural therapy Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Varied controlled comparisons
sample
Six studies: four randomized trials and two nonrandomized trials
measurement
Violent behaviour
timing
Varied
trial Id
PROSPERO CRD42016041493
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Violent behaviour
    follow Up
    Varied
    result
    Inconsistent evidence across designs and informants
    effect Estimate
    Not pooled
    uncertainty
    Low-quality and limited studies
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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
Male perpetrators of IPV against female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies male perpetrators of ipv against female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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-30621661
doi
10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
pmid
30621661
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-cd088089af6a
source Content Hash
cd088089af6aabfa97a683879e3bc949b1c57a1b026412b32a692a0dc897ddfe
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

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
7a36bfb4ae664ad8de63ea8b94056786875c6258da9ca0572c86db68db7ee434
prior Revision
r1-7a36bfb4ae66
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-30621661
doi
10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
pmid
30621661
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
a0549dcefcfb64a8342819e173f7f4e3c36140b9aad47a10c490e2d0787ed9f9
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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

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:30621661
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-30621661
aliases
None recorded
title
Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a systematic review.
journal
BMC psychiatry
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2019
authors
Nesset MB; Lara-Cabrera ML; Dalsbø TK; Pedersen SA; Bjørngaard JH; Palmstierna T
design
Systematic review
kind
Review
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
pmid
30621661
urls

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Several RCTs reported improvement, but the review judged evidence insufficient to confirm benefit; the nonrandomized studies found no detectable effect.
limitation
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

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
bmcpsychiatry
journal Label
BMC psychiatry
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-30621661
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a systematic review.
    authors
    Nesset MB; Lara-Cabrera ML; Dalsbø TK; Pedersen SA; Bjørngaard JH; Palmstierna T
    year
    2019
    journal
    BMC psychiatry
    doi
    10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
    pmid
    30621661
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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-30621661
    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/30621661
    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
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    Several RCTs reported improvement, but the review judged evidence insufficient to confirm benefit; the nonrandomized studies found no detectable effect.
    summary
    Several RCTs reported improvement, but the review judged evidence insufficient to confirm benefit; the nonrandomized studies found no detectable effect.
    limitation
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Systematic review
    intervention
    Group cognitive behavioural therapy Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Varied controlled comparisons
    sample
    Six studies: four randomized trials and two nonrandomized trials
    measurement
    Violent behaviour
    timing
    Varied
    trial Id
    PROSPERO CRD42016041493
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Violent behaviour
      follow Up
      Varied
      result
      Inconsistent evidence across designs and informants
      effect Estimate
      Not pooled
      uncertainty
      Low-quality and limited studies
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    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
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    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
    Male perpetrators of IPV against female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male perpetrators of ipv against female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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-cd088089af6a
    source Content Hash
    cd088089af6aabfa97a683879e3bc949b1c57a1b026412b32a692a0dc897ddfe
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    review:30621661
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-30621661
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    7a36bfb4ae664ad8de63ea8b94056786875c6258da9ca0572c86db68db7ee434
    prior Revision
    r1-7a36bfb4ae66
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-30621661
    doi
    10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
    pmid
    30621661
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    a0549dcefcfb64a8342819e173f7f4e3c36140b9aad47a10c490e2d0787ed9f9
    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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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-30621661
    title
    Cognitive behavioural group therapy for male perpetrators of intimate partner violence: a systematic review.
    authors

    Nesset MB · Lara-Cabrera ML · Dalsbø TK · Pedersen SA · Bjørngaard JH · Palmstierna T

    year
    2019
    journal
    BMC psychiatry
    doi
    10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
    pmid
    30621661
    trial Registration

    PROSPERO CRD42016041493

    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Group cognitive behavioural therapy
    publication Type
    Systematic review
    study Family Id
    review:30621661
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    false
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Male perpetrators of IPV against female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male perpetrators of ipv against female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    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
    Six studies: four randomized trials and two nonrandomized trials
    intervention
    description
    Group cognitive behavioural therapy
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Varied controlled comparisons
    outcomes
    1. name
      Violent behaviour
      follow Up
      Varied
      result
      Inconsistent evidence across designs and informants
      effect Estimate
      Not pooled
      uncertainty
      Low-quality and limited studies
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    Several RCTs reported improvement, but the review judged evidence insufficient to confirm benefit; the nonrandomized studies found no detectable effect.
    limitation
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    design
    type
    Systematic review
    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
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    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
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    jadad
    not applicable
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661
      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/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:05.175552+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
    Summarizes the limited controlled evidence for group CBT with male IPV perpetrators.
    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
    eb137388e221c1d1c4f5ca364bf36c5156ae336bdcd8a3412f6affb097d81f59
    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
    7a36bfb4ae664ad8de63ea8b94056786875c6258da9ca0572c86db68db7ee434
    prior Revision
    r1-7a36bfb4ae66
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-30621661
    doi
    10.1186/s12888-019-2010-1
    pmid
    30621661
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    a0549dcefcfb64a8342819e173f7f4e3c36140b9aad47a10c490e2d0787ed9f9
    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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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/30621661 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12888-019-2010-1

    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
    Male perpetrators of IPV against female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male perpetrators of ipv against female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
    intervention
    description
    Group cognitive behavioural therapy
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Varied controlled comparisons
    outcomes
    1. name
      Violent behaviour
      follow Up
      Varied
      result
      Inconsistent evidence across designs and informants
      effect Estimate
      Not pooled
      uncertainty
      Low-quality and limited studies
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

    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
    cd088089af6aabfa97a683879e3bc949b1c57a1b026412b32a692a0dc897ddfe
    revision
    audit-r2-cd088089af6a
    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
intervention
Group cognitive behavioural therapy Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Varied controlled comparisons
sample
Six studies: four randomized trials and two nonrandomized trials
measurement
Violent behaviour
timing
Varied
trial Id
PROSPERO CRD42016041493
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/30621661 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30621661/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Violent behaviour
    follow Up
    Varied
    result
    Inconsistent evidence across designs and informants
    effect Estimate
    Not pooled
    uncertainty
    Low-quality and limited studies
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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
Male perpetrators of IPV against female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies male perpetrators of ipv against female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Few low-quality studies; self-report and partner-report findings differed. A narrative synthesis does not establish a pooled effect.
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