A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors.

category

review

is Randomized Controlled Trial

false

basis

Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.

sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

review Scope

abstract

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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

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

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

evidence Type

Systematic scoping review

intervention

Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy Not established from accessed abstract.

comparator

Mixed qualitative and quantitative designs

sample

27 included articles: 15 survivor advocacy/case-management, three with psychotherapy, six community-focused, and three community-focused with psychotherapy

measurement

Social support and mental health; IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

timing

Study-specific

trial Id

relationship Note

Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

abstract

source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

retrieved At

2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

outcomes

1. name

   Social support and mental health

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Often improved

   effect Estimate

   Not pooled

   uncertainty

   Heterogeneous designs and settings

   primary Status

   Not established from accessed abstract.

2. name

   IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Little evidence of benefit

   effect Estimate

   Not pooled

   uncertainty

   Limited outcome evidence

   primary Status

   Not established from accessed abstract.

quality

risk Of Bias

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

attrition

Not established from accessed abstract.

confounding

Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.

adverse Findings

Not established from accessed abstract.

transfer Limits

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

jadad

not applicable

masking Roles

participants

Not established from accessed abstract.

providers

Not established from accessed abstract.

assessors

Not established from accessed abstract.

analysts

Not established from accessed abstract.

population

relation

direct

population

IPV survivors and their support networks

exposure Evidence

The accessed publication explicitly identifies ipv survivors and their support networks.

rationale

Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.

transfer Limit

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

count

Not recorded

source

Not recorded

retrieved At

Not recorded

status

not-assessed

language

Not recorded

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-r2-9168ea34d2bb

source Content Hash

9168ea34d2bb12cfc410eaa70e388eb8ac512db752d38c0e21fa7202995aacaf

level

abstract

source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

retrieved At

2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

auditor

Codex (AI)

completed At

2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00

prior Content Hash

1ff3b31448033cf86400fef15e1f30c11dbe1658027fdb58d781466ebcbe72dd

prior Revision

r1-1ff3b3144803

prior Source

frozen-120

source Verification

id

dv-reviews-32584910

doi

10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

pmid

32584910

fresh Metadata

Europe PMC core

metadata Retrieved

true

metadata SHA256

9b70dbfb237f1f0f0bc17ab1d42160ed087eacd51bce0dec9941ae70634125d5

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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

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.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

language

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

count

Not recorded

source

Not recorded

retrieved At

Not recorded

status

not-assessed

category

review

is Randomized Controlled Trial

false

basis

Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.

sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

review Scope

abstract

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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

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

language

Not recorded

1. key

   language:domestic-family-violence

   title

   Domestic & Family Violence

   collection

   language

   trust Score

   2

1. id

   language-dv-dv-reviews-32584910

   aliases

   None recorded

   title

   A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors.

   authors

   Ogbe E; Harmon S; Van den Bergh R; Degomme O

   year

   2020

   journal

   PloS one

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

   pmid

   32584910

   urls

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235177 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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-32584910

   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/32584910

   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 scoping review

   origin

   approved-dv-20261101

   priority

   1

   quotes

   None recorded

   finding

   Most studies reported better support or mental-health outcomes; evidence for reducing IPV or increasing healthcare use was limited.

   summary

   Most studies reported better support or mental-health outcomes; evidence for reducing IPV or increasing healthcare use was limited.

   limitation

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   evidence

   evidence Type

   Systematic scoping review

   intervention

   Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy Not established from accessed abstract.

   comparator

   Mixed qualitative and quantitative designs

   sample

   27 included articles: 15 survivor advocacy/case-management, three with psychotherapy, six community-focused, and three community-focused with psychotherapy

   measurement

   Social support and mental health; IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

   timing

   Study-specific

   trial Id

   relationship Note

   Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   measured Genes

   None recorded

   pathways

   None recorded

   source Access

   level

   abstract

   source URLs

   https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

   outcomes

   1. name

      Social support and mental health

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Often improved

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Heterogeneous designs and settings

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   2. name

      IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Little evidence of benefit

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Limited outcome evidence

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   quality

   risk Of Bias

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   attrition

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   confounding

   Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.

   adverse Findings

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   transfer Limits

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   jadad

   not applicable

   masking Roles

   participants

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   providers

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   assessors

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   analysts

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   population

   relation

   direct

   population

   IPV survivors and their support networks

   exposure Evidence

   The accessed publication explicitly identifies ipv survivors and their support networks.

   rationale

   Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.

   transfer Limit

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   study Design Assessment

   category

   review

   is Randomized Controlled Trial

   false

   basis

   Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.

   sources

   https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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-r2-9168ea34d2bb

   source Content Hash

   9168ea34d2bb12cfc410eaa70e388eb8ac512db752d38c0e21fa7202995aacaf

   source Access

   level

   abstract

   source URLs

   https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

   study Family Id

   review:32584910

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   approaches

   None recorded

   record Id

   dv-reviews-32584910

   source Pages

   None recorded

   editorial Audit

   auditor

   Codex (AI)

   completed At

   2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00

   prior Content Hash

   1ff3b31448033cf86400fef15e1f30c11dbe1658027fdb58d781466ebcbe72dd

   prior Revision

   r1-1ff3b3144803

   prior Source

   frozen-120

   source Verification

   id

   dv-reviews-32584910

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

   pmid

   32584910

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   9b70dbfb237f1f0f0bc17ab1d42160ed087eacd51bce0dec9941ae70634125d5

   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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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-32584910

   title

   A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors.

   authors

   Ogbe E · Harmon S · Van den Bergh R · Degomme O

   year

   2020

   journal

   PloS one

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

   pmid

   32584910

   trial Registration

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   intervention Family

   Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy

   publication Type

   Systematic scoping review

   study Family Id

   review:32584910

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   independent Primary Study

   false

   existing Repository Matches

   None recorded

   relevance

   relation

   direct

   population

   IPV survivors and their support networks

   exposure Evidence

   The accessed publication explicitly identifies ipv survivors and their support networks.

   rationale

   Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.

   transfer Limit

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   age

   groups

   adults

   reported Range

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   youth Scope

   Not recorded

   country

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   setting

   Multiple study settings; distribution not established from abstract.

   sample Size

   randomized

   Not recorded

   analyzed

   Not recorded

   description

   27 included articles: 15 survivor advocacy/case-management, three with psychotherapy, six community-focused, and three community-focused with psychotherapy

   intervention

   description

   Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy

   dose

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   provider

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   comparator

   Mixed qualitative and quantitative designs

   outcomes

   1. name

      Social support and mental health

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Often improved

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Heterogeneous designs and settings

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   2. name

      IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Little evidence of benefit

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Limited outcome evidence

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   finding

   Most studies reported better support or mental-health outcomes; evidence for reducing IPV or increasing healthcare use was limited.

   limitation

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   design

   type

   Systematic scoping 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

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   attrition

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   confounding

   Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.

   adverse Findings

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   transfer Limits

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   jadad

   not applicable

   access

   level

   abstract

   source URLs

   https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

   sources

   1. url

      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910

      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/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

      type

      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T07:26:10.025596+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

   Maps social-support and mental-health interventions for survivors, distinguishing broader service support from psychotherapy.

   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

   c8d69f2b0c8b9861723ee4772a34c497ec374fe0fec1be7a6cc3c36ffcce6738

   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

   1ff3b31448033cf86400fef15e1f30c11dbe1658027fdb58d781466ebcbe72dd

   prior Revision

   r1-1ff3b3144803

   prior Source

   frozen-120

   source Verification

   id

   dv-reviews-32584910

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0235177

   pmid

   32584910

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   9b70dbfb237f1f0f0bc17ab1d42160ed087eacd51bce0dec9941ae70634125d5

   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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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/32584910 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0235177

   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

   IPV survivors and their support networks

   exposure Evidence

   The accessed publication explicitly identifies ipv survivors and their support networks.

   rationale

   Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.

   transfer Limit

   This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

   intervention

   description

   Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy

   dose

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   provider

   Not established from accessed abstract.

   comparator

   Mixed qualitative and quantitative designs

   outcomes

   1. name

      Social support and mental health

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Often improved

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Heterogeneous designs and settings

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   2. name

      IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Little evidence of benefit

      effect Estimate

      Not pooled

      uncertainty

      Limited outcome evidence

      primary Status

      Not established from accessed abstract.

   access

   level

   abstract

   source URLs

   https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

   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

   9168ea34d2bb12cfc410eaa70e388eb8ac512db752d38c0e21fa7202995aacaf

   revision

   audit-r2-9168ea34d2bb

   archive Entries

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   chapter Number

   5

   topic Id

   domestic-family-violence

   topic Title

   Domestic & Family Violence

   trust Score

   2

evidence Type

Systematic scoping review

intervention

Social-support and advocacy interventions, some incorporating psychotherapy Not established from accessed abstract.

comparator

Mixed qualitative and quantitative designs

sample

27 included articles: 15 survivor advocacy/case-management, three with psychotherapy, six community-focused, and three community-focused with psychotherapy

measurement

Social support and mental health; IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

timing

Study-specific

trial Id

relationship Note

Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

abstract

source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/32584910 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32584910/

retrieved At

2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00

outcomes

1. name

   Social support and mental health

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Often improved

   effect Estimate

   Not pooled

   uncertainty

   Heterogeneous designs and settings

   primary Status

   Not established from accessed abstract.

2. name

   IPV recurrence and healthcare utilization

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Little evidence of benefit

   effect Estimate

   Not pooled

   uncertainty

   Limited outcome evidence

   primary Status

   Not established from accessed abstract.

quality

risk Of Bias

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

attrition

Not established from accessed abstract.

confounding

Study-design heterogeneity, overlapping trials and review-specific eligibility limit pooling across reviews.

adverse Findings

Not established from accessed abstract.

transfer Limits

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

jadad

not applicable

masking Roles

participants

Not established from accessed abstract.

providers

Not established from accessed abstract.

assessors

Not established from accessed abstract.

analysts

Not established from accessed abstract.

population

relation

direct

population

IPV survivors and their support networks

exposure Evidence

The accessed publication explicitly identifies ipv survivors and their support networks.

rationale

Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.

transfer Limit

This is a mixed-methods scoping review, not a meta-analysis. Many interventions are service supports rather than talking therapy.

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

2

status

not-indexed

retrieval Available

false