Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Intimate Partner Violence and Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

Linde DS; Bakiewicz A; Normann AK; Hansen NB; Lundh A; Rasch V · Journal of medical Internet research · 2020 · Systematic review and meta-analysis

Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication

Recorded summary

Pooled randomized evidence showed no clear benefit for overall IPV, depression or PTSD.

Recorded limitations

Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.

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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

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
Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Standard care
sample
14 trials identified: eight published, three unpublished and three ongoing; seven published trials contributed to meta-analyses.
measurement
Overall IPV; Depression; PTSD
timing
Trial-specific
trial Id
PROSPERO CRD42019130124
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Overall IPV
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.01
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.11 to 0.08; five trials, 1668 women
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Depression
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.13
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.37 to 0.11; I² 78%
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    PTSD
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    MD -0.11
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.04 to 0.82
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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 exposed to IPV
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women exposed to ipv.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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-33306030
doi
10.2196/22361
pmid
33306030
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-d339f591ad41
source Content Hash
d339f591ad4167a7929c251bc4f8097f8cdd6f718e984697a3c5288bffa34eb0
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

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
706726508728357b21bd4d3b1f6d552aa5ef5c6a1c525ce91a32307d23fb4286
prior Revision
r1-706726508728
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-33306030
doi
10.2196/22361
pmid
33306030
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
4d6ef9f39bd1a5449e53a29fcb5316c310293139237bbee4084970e04716baf0
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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

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:33306030
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-33306030
aliases
None recorded
title
Intimate Partner Violence and Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
journal
Journal of medical Internet research
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2020
authors
Linde DS; Bakiewicz A; Normann AK; Hansen NB; Lundh A; Rasch V
design
Systematic review and meta-analysis
kind
Review
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.2196/22361
pmid
33306030
urls

https://doi.org/10.2196/22361 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Pooled randomized evidence showed no clear benefit for overall IPV, depression or PTSD.
limitation
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

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
journalofmedicalinternetresearch
journal Label
Journal of medical Internet research
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-33306030
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Intimate Partner Violence and Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
    authors
    Linde DS; Bakiewicz A; Normann AK; Hansen NB; Lundh A; Rasch V
    year
    2020
    journal
    Journal of medical Internet research
    doi
    10.2196/22361
    pmid
    33306030
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.2196/22361 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    collections

    language

    categories

    Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

    targets
    None recorded
    neurotransmitters
    None recorded
    conditions

    ptsd · depression

    condition Evidence
    1. id
      ptsd
      evidence
      1. field
        outcomes
        text
        Overall IPV | Depression | PTSD
        matched Text
        PTSD
      scope
      Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.
    2. id
      depression
      evidence
      1. field
        outcomes
        text
        Overall IPV | Depression | PTSD
        matched Text
        Depression
      scope
      Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.
    age Groups

    adults

    age Population
    record Id
    dv-reviews-33306030
    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/33306030
    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 randomized evidence showed no clear benefit for overall IPV, depression or PTSD.
    summary
    Pooled randomized evidence showed no clear benefit for overall IPV, depression or PTSD.
    limitation
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    intervention
    Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Standard care
    sample
    14 trials identified: eight published, three unpublished and three ongoing; seven published trials contributed to meta-analyses.
    measurement
    Overall IPV; Depression; PTSD
    timing
    Trial-specific
    trial Id
    PROSPERO CRD42019130124
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Overall IPV
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.01
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.11 to 0.08; five trials, 1668 women
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Depression
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.13
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.37 to 0.11; I² 78%
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      PTSD
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      MD -0.11
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.04 to 0.82
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    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
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    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 exposed to IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women exposed to ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    review
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    false
    basis
    Evidence synthesis; not a participant-randomized experiment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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-d339f591ad41
    source Content Hash
    d339f591ad4167a7929c251bc4f8097f8cdd6f718e984697a3c5288bffa34eb0
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    review:33306030
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-33306030
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    706726508728357b21bd4d3b1f6d552aa5ef5c6a1c525ce91a32307d23fb4286
    prior Revision
    r1-706726508728
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-33306030
    doi
    10.2196/22361
    pmid
    33306030
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    4d6ef9f39bd1a5449e53a29fcb5316c310293139237bbee4084970e04716baf0
    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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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-33306030
    title
    Intimate Partner Violence and Electronic Health Interventions: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.
    authors

    Linde DS · Bakiewicz A · Normann AK · Hansen NB · Lundh A · Rasch V

    year
    2020
    journal
    Journal of medical Internet research
    doi
    10.2196/22361
    pmid
    33306030
    trial Registration

    PROSPERO CRD42019130124

    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences
    publication Type
    Systematic review and meta-analysis
    study Family Id
    review:33306030
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    false
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Women exposed to IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women exposed to ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    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
    14 trials identified: eight published, three unpublished and three ongoing; seven published trials contributed to meta-analyses.
    intervention
    description
    Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Standard care
    outcomes
    1. name
      Overall IPV
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.01
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.11 to 0.08; five trials, 1668 women
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Depression
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.13
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.37 to 0.11; I² 78%
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      PTSD
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      MD -0.11
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.04 to 0.82
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    Pooled randomized evidence showed no clear benefit for overall IPV, depression or PTSD.
    limitation
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    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
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    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
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    jadad
    not applicable
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030
      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/10.2196%2F22361
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:03.877472+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.
    relation Links
    has-preprint
    1. id-type
      doi
      id
      10.2196/preprints.22361
      asserted-by
      object
    recommendation Rationale
    Documents null pooled findings for digital IPV interventions and helps distinguish digital 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
    bba0e4f209a8c8f1425afe82051c3137b7f14ac98fdfc658c0ddc22f212d47d7
    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
    706726508728357b21bd4d3b1f6d552aa5ef5c6a1c525ce91a32307d23fb4286
    prior Revision
    r1-706726508728
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-33306030
    doi
    10.2196/22361
    pmid
    33306030
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    4d6ef9f39bd1a5449e53a29fcb5316c310293139237bbee4084970e04716baf0
    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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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/33306030 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.2196%2F22361

    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 exposed to IPV
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies women exposed to ipv.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
    intervention
    description
    Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences
    dose
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Standard care
    outcomes
    1. name
      Overall IPV
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.01
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.11 to 0.08; five trials, 1668 women
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Depression
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      SMD -0.13
      uncertainty
      95% CI -0.37 to 0.11; I² 78%
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    3. name
      PTSD
      follow Up
      Trial-specific
      result
      No clear difference
      effect Estimate
      MD -0.11
      uncertainty
      95% CI -1.04 to 0.82
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

    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
    d339f591ad4167a7929c251bc4f8097f8cdd6f718e984697a3c5288bffa34eb0
    revision
    audit-r2-d339f591ad41
    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
Electronic health interventions addressing IPV and health consequences Not established from accessed abstract.
comparator
Standard care
sample
14 trials identified: eight published, three unpublished and three ongoing; seven published trials contributed to meta-analyses.
measurement
Overall IPV; Depression; PTSD
timing
Trial-specific
trial Id
PROSPERO CRD42019130124
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/33306030 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33306030/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Overall IPV
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.01
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.11 to 0.08; five trials, 1668 women
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Depression
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    SMD -0.13
    uncertainty
    95% CI -0.37 to 0.11; I² 78%
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  3. name
    PTSD
    follow Up
    Trial-specific
    result
    No clear difference
    effect Estimate
    MD -0.11
    uncertainty
    95% CI -1.04 to 0.82
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
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 exposed to IPV
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies women exposed to ipv.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Only two published trials were judged overall low risk of bias. Digital safety/support interventions are broader than psychotherapy; findings cannot be attributed to talking therapy alone.
jadad
status
not-applicable
score
Not recorded
condition Evidence
  1. id
    ptsd
    evidence
    1. field
      outcomes
      text
      Overall IPV | Depression | PTSD
      matched Text
      PTSD
    scope
    Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.
  2. id
    depression
    evidence
    1. field
      outcomes
      text
      Overall IPV | Depression | PTSD
      matched Text
      Depression
    scope
    Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.
conditions

ptsd · depression

topic Trust Scores

2

full Text
status
not-indexed
retrieval Available
false

Open this publication in the interactive library