Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Psychosocial interventions for intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Turner DT; Riedel E; Kobeissi LH; Karyotaki E; Garcia-Moreno C; Say L; Cuijpers P · Journal of global health · 2020 · Systematic review and meta-analysis

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

Pooled analyses suggested reductions in IPV, but sexual-IPV findings were not robust to risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.

Recorded limitations

Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.

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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

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
Psychosocial interventions for IPV Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Control conditions across randomized trials
sample
13 RCTs
measurement
Any IPV; Physical IPV; Sexual IPV
timing
Shortest/longest follow-up; Longest follow-up
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Any IPV
    follow Up
    Shortest/longest follow-up
    result
    Favored intervention
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.73 /0.75
    uncertainty
    CIs not supplied in abstract
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Physical IPV
    follow Up
    Shortest/longest follow-up
    result
    Favored intervention
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.78 /0.73
    uncertainty
    CIs not supplied in abstract
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    Sexual IPV
    follow Up
    Longest follow-up
    result
    Initial benefit lost in bias sensitivity analysis
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.77
    uncertainty
    No significant shortest-follow-up benefit
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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 in LMICs studied in psychosocial IPV interventions
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women in lmics studied in psychosocial ipv interventions.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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-32373328
doi
10.7189/jogh.10.010409
pmid
32373328
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-r2-06643330f5ef
source Content Hash
06643330f5ef3371951e22a148ebf2d02d3695014eba5c2ac60abd1f1473d4ca
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

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
3e6f18e30c1757d662ae7eab601903fda1623b156fc33c4b27332d429c2ec8e9
prior Revision
r1-3e6f18e30c17
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-32373328
doi
10.7189/jogh.10.010409
pmid
32373328
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
ccb2c47714751141cd45b8ffca5d983778951614af5d562ba53a4c0385f37ac8
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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

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:32373328
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-32373328
aliases
None recorded
title
Psychosocial interventions for intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
journal
Journal of global health
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2020
authors
Turner DT; Riedel E; Kobeissi LH; Karyotaki E; Garcia-Moreno C; Say L; Cuijpers P
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
kind
Review
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.7189/jogh.10.010409
pmid
32373328
urls

https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.010409 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Pooled analyses suggested reductions in IPV, but sexual-IPV findings were not robust to risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.
limitation
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

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
journalofglobalhealth
journal Label
Journal of global health
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-32373328
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Psychosocial interventions for intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    authors
    Turner DT; Riedel E; Kobeissi LH; Karyotaki E; Garcia-Moreno C; Say L; Cuijpers P
    year
    2020
    journal
    Journal of global health
    doi
    10.7189/jogh.10.010409
    pmid
    32373328
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.7189/jogh.10.010409 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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-32373328
    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/32373328
    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
    Pooled analyses suggested reductions in IPV, but sexual-IPV findings were not robust to risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.
    summary
    Pooled analyses suggested reductions in IPV, but sexual-IPV findings were not robust to risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.
    limitation
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    intervention
    Psychosocial interventions for IPV Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Control conditions across randomized trials
    sample
    13 RCTs
    measurement
    Any IPV; Physical IPV; Sexual IPV
    timing
    Shortest/longest follow-up; Longest follow-up
    trial Id
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Any IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.73 /0.75
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Physical IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.78 /0.73
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Sexual IPV
      follow Up
      Longest follow-up
      result
      Initial benefit lost in bias sensitivity analysis
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.77
      uncertainty
      No significant shortest-follow-up benefit
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    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
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    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 in LMICs studied in psychosocial IPV interventions
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women in lmics studied in psychosocial ipv interventions.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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-r2-06643330f5ef
    source Content Hash
    06643330f5ef3371951e22a148ebf2d02d3695014eba5c2ac60abd1f1473d4ca
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    review:32373328
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-32373328
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    3e6f18e30c1757d662ae7eab601903fda1623b156fc33c4b27332d429c2ec8e9
    prior Revision
    r1-3e6f18e30c17
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-32373328
    doi
    10.7189/jogh.10.010409
    pmid
    32373328
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ccb2c47714751141cd45b8ffca5d983778951614af5d562ba53a4c0385f37ac8
    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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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-32373328
    title
    Psychosocial interventions for intimate partner violence in low and middle income countries: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
    authors

    Turner DT · Riedel E · Kobeissi LH · Karyotaki E · Garcia-Moreno C · Say L · Cuijpers P

    year
    2020
    journal
    Journal of global health
    doi
    10.7189/jogh.10.010409
    pmid
    32373328
    trial Registration
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Psychosocial interventions for IPV
    publication Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    study Family Id
    review:32373328
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    false
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Women in LMICs studied in psychosocial IPV interventions
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women in lmics studied in psychosocial ipv interventions.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    Low- and middle-income countries
    setting
    Multiple study settings; distribution not established from abstract.
    sample Size
    randomized
    Not recorded
    analyzed
    Not recorded
    description
    13 RCTs
    intervention
    description
    Psychosocial interventions for IPV
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Control conditions across randomized trials
    outcomes
    1. name
      Any IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.73 /0.75
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Physical IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.78 /0.73
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Sexual IPV
      follow Up
      Longest follow-up
      result
      Initial benefit lost in bias sensitivity analysis
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.77
      uncertainty
      No significant shortest-follow-up benefit
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    Pooled analyses suggested reductions in IPV, but sexual-IPV findings were not robust to risk-of-bias sensitivity analysis.
    limitation
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    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
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    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
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    jadad
    not applicable
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328
      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/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:10.814594+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 broad psychosocial IPV interventions in LMICs and retains the loss of sexual-IPV benefit in sensitivity analysis.
    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
    a8f47f51686b8a46118fb9459fa0a2f0c1d62eb0a90d207ddccb69cd3a7e4cf6
    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
    3e6f18e30c1757d662ae7eab601903fda1623b156fc33c4b27332d429c2ec8e9
    prior Revision
    r1-3e6f18e30c17
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-32373328
    doi
    10.7189/jogh.10.010409
    pmid
    32373328
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ccb2c47714751141cd45b8ffca5d983778951614af5d562ba53a4c0385f37ac8
    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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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/32373328 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.7189%2Fjogh.10.010409

    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 in LMICs studied in psychosocial IPV interventions
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women in lmics studied in psychosocial ipv interventions.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
    intervention
    description
    Psychosocial interventions for IPV
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Control conditions across randomized trials
    outcomes
    1. name
      Any IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.73 /0.75
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Physical IPV
      follow Up
      Shortest/longest follow-up
      result
      Favored intervention
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.78 /0.73
      uncertainty
      CIs not supplied in abstract
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      Sexual IPV
      follow Up
      Longest follow-up
      result
      Initial benefit lost in bias sensitivity analysis
      effect Estimate
      RR 0.77
      uncertainty
      No significant shortest-follow-up benefit
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

    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
    06643330f5ef3371951e22a148ebf2d02d3695014eba5c2ac60abd1f1473d4ca
    revision
    audit-r2-06643330f5ef
    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
Psychosocial interventions for IPV Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Control conditions across randomized trials
sample
13 RCTs
measurement
Any IPV; Physical IPV; Sexual IPV
timing
Shortest/longest follow-up; Longest follow-up
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32373328 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32373328/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Any IPV
    follow Up
    Shortest/longest follow-up
    result
    Favored intervention
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.73 /0.75
    uncertainty
    CIs not supplied in abstract
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Physical IPV
    follow Up
    Shortest/longest follow-up
    result
    Favored intervention
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.78 /0.73
    uncertainty
    CIs not supplied in abstract
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    Sexual IPV
    follow Up
    Longest follow-up
    result
    Initial benefit lost in bias sensitivity analysis
    effect Estimate
    RR 0.77
    uncertainty
    No significant shortest-follow-up benefit
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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 in LMICs studied in psychosocial IPV interventions
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women in lmics studied in psychosocial ipv interventions.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Moderate-to-high heterogeneity and few low-risk trials. Broad psychosocial programmes cannot be equated with an isolated psychotherapy technique.
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