Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.

Cramer H; Gaunt DM; Shallcross R; Bates L; Kandiyali R; Sardinha L; Rice CT; Man MS; Feder G; Peters TJ; Morgan K · BMC public health · 2024 · Randomized pilot and feasibility trial

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

Recorded summary

Recruitment and follow-up were feasible in a small pilot. Three serious adverse events included one potentially trial-related event; this is not an efficacy result.

Recorded limitations

Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.

Evidence and provenance

Chapter Trust Factor uses a minimum of three distinct qualifying studies. Publication records retain their own evidence and assessment.

Study design and assessment
design
Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
assessment
category
rct
is Randomized Controlled Trial
true
basis
Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

review Scope
selected-methods
trust Factor
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

review Scope
selected-methods
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
masking Roles
participants
Unblinded; explicitly reported.
providers
Allocation known to programme coordinator.
assessors
Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
analysts
Not established from inspected sections.
rating Scale
library-trust-factor/1-3
jadad
status
unassessed
score
Not recorded
evidence
evidence Type
Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
intervention
Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support 23 weeks plus average three individual sessions
comparator
Usual care; no active male treatment; control partners signposted to services
sample
36 men randomized(22 intervention,14 usual care); 15 partners enrolled
measurement
Feasibility/retention
timing
Nine months
trial Id
ISRCTN71797549
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Feasibility/retention
    follow Up
    Nine months
    result
    Trial procedures feasible
    effect Estimate
    67%men; 80%women retained
    uncertainty
    Small pilot; not powered for efficacy
    primary Status
    Primary feasibility objective
quality
risk Of Bias
Small feasibility sample and low partner recruitment; positive qualitative reports are not comparative effectiveness evidence. Registration was retrospective.
attrition
At nine months,24/36 men and 12/15 women completed questionnaires.
confounding
Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
adverse Findings
Three serious adverse events: two considered unrelated and one potentially trial-related. Two men were withdrawn for safety concerns.
transfer Limits
Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
jadad
not established
masking Roles
participants
Unblinded; explicitly reported.
providers
Allocation known to programme coordinator.
assessors
Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
analysts
Not established from inspected sections.
population
relation
direct
population
Male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
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-38678198
doi
10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
pmid
38678198
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-r2-6c2b56d99b8e
source Content Hash
6c2b56d99b8eaff3269810b2097c813201d43deff0521a9b6ab5ed7cdd047b43
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

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
45ae91805c769720ff13c2d9c914596957e6344cb0cf93edb0bfbf1776ee751b
prior Revision
r1-45ae91805c76
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-38678198
doi
10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
pmid
38678198
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
4bba52e4e265e4cff46a438160f539d54e0a8c4f8ea10a631bc59ab0ad33a3b9
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/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

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
ISRCTN71797549
family Linkage Uncertain
false
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-38678198
aliases
None recorded
title
Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.
journal
BMC public health
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2024
authors
Cramer H; Gaunt DM; Shallcross R; Bates L; Kandiyali R; Sardinha L; Rice CT; Man MS; Feder G; Peters TJ; Morgan K
design
Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
kind
Journal article
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
pmid
38678198
urls

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Recruitment and follow-up were feasible in a small pilot. Three serious adverse events included one potentially trial-related event; this is not an efficacy result.
limitation
Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
citation Count
Not recorded
citation Snapshot
count
Not recorded
source
Not recorded
retrieved At
Not recorded
status
not-assessed
study Design Assessment
category
rct
is Randomized Controlled Trial
true
basis
Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

review Scope
selected-methods
paper Trust Assessment
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

review Scope
selected-methods
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
masking Roles
participants
Unblinded; explicitly reported.
providers
Allocation known to programme coordinator.
assessors
Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
analysts
Not established from inspected sections.
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
bmcpublichealth
journal Label
BMC public health
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-38678198
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.
    authors
    Cramer H; Gaunt DM; Shallcross R; Bates L; Kandiyali R; Sardinha L; Rice CT; Man MS; Feder G; Peters TJ; Morgan K
    year
    2024
    journal
    BMC public health
    doi
    10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
    pmid
    38678198
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    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-38678198
    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/38678198
    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
    Journal article
    design
    Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    Recruitment and follow-up were feasible in a small pilot. Three serious adverse events included one potentially trial-related event; this is not an efficacy result.
    summary
    Recruitment and follow-up were feasible in a small pilot. Three serious adverse events included one potentially trial-related event; this is not an efficacy result.
    limitation
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
    intervention
    Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support 23 weeks plus average three individual sessions
    comparator
    Usual care; no active male treatment; control partners signposted to services
    sample
    36 men randomized(22 intervention,14 usual care); 15 partners enrolled
    measurement
    Feasibility/retention
    timing
    Nine months
    trial Id
    ISRCTN71797549
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      Feasibility/retention
      follow Up
      Nine months
      result
      Trial procedures feasible
      effect Estimate
      67%men; 80%women retained
      uncertainty
      Small pilot; not powered for efficacy
      primary Status
      Primary feasibility objective
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Small feasibility sample and low partner recruitment; positive qualitative reports are not comparative effectiveness evidence. Registration was retrospective.
    attrition
    At nine months,24/36 men and 12/15 women completed questionnaires.
    confounding
    Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
    adverse Findings
    Three serious adverse events: two considered unrelated and one potentially trial-related. Two men were withdrawn for safety concerns.
    transfer Limits
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    jadad
    not established
    masking Roles
    participants
    Unblinded; explicitly reported.
    providers
    Allocation known to programme coordinator.
    assessors
    Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
    analysts
    Not established from inspected sections.
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    rct
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    basis
    Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    2
    randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-confirmed
    basis
    Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    2
    masking Roles
    participants
    Unblinded; explicitly reported.
    providers
    Allocation known to programme coordinator.
    assessors
    Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
    analysts
    Not established from inspected sections.
    rating Scale
    library-trust-factor/1-3
    jadad
    status
    unassessed
    score
    Not recorded
    citation Snapshot
    count
    Not recorded
    source
    Not recorded
    retrieved At
    Not recorded
    status
    not-assessed
    citation Count
    Not recorded
    publication Approval
    status
    approved-for-publication
    approved By
    Ben Korbel
    approved At
    2026-11-01
    assessment
    AI assessed; human approved for publication
    scope
    Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
    source Revision
    audit-r2-6c2b56d99b8e
    source Content Hash
    6c2b56d99b8eaff3269810b2097c813201d43deff0521a9b6ab5ed7cdd047b43
    source Access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    ISRCTN71797549
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-38678198
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    45ae91805c769720ff13c2d9c914596957e6344cb0cf93edb0bfbf1776ee751b
    prior Revision
    r1-45ae91805c76
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-38678198
    doi
    10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
    pmid
    38678198
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    4bba52e4e265e4cff46a438160f539d54e0a8c4f8ea10a631bc59ab0ad33a3b9
    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/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    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-38678198
    title
    Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.
    authors

    Cramer H · Gaunt DM · Shallcross R · Bates L · Kandiyali R · Sardinha L · Rice CT · Man MS · Feder G · Peters TJ · Morgan K

    year
    2024
    journal
    BMC public health
    doi
    10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
    pmid
    38678198
    trial Registration

    ISRCTN71797549

    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support
    publication Type
    Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
    study Family Id
    ISRCTN71797549
    family Linkage Uncertain
    false
    independent Primary Study
    true
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    United Kingdom
    setting
    One English site covering three local-authority areas
    sample Size
    randomized
    36
    analyzed
    Not recorded
    description
    36 men randomized(22 intervention,14 usual care); 15 partners enrolled
    intervention
    description
    Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support
    dose
    23 weeks plus average three individual sessions
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Usual care; no active male treatment; control partners signposted to services
    outcomes
    1. name
      Feasibility/retention
      follow Up
      Nine months
      result
      Trial procedures feasible
      effect Estimate
      67%men; 80%women retained
      uncertainty
      Small pilot; not powered for efficacy
      primary Status
      Primary feasibility objective
    finding
    Recruitment and follow-up were feasible in a small pilot. Three serious adverse events included one potentially trial-related event; this is not an efficacy result.
    limitation
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    design
    type
    Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
    randomization Evidence
    Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
    masking
    participants
    Unblinded; explicitly reported.
    providers
    Allocation known to programme coordinator.
    assessors
    Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
    analysts
    Not established from inspected sections.
    crosses
    1
    cross Rationale
    Random allocation is explicitly described; double blinding not established.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Small feasibility sample and low partner recruitment; positive qualitative reports are not comparative effectiveness evidence. Registration was retrospective.
    attrition
    At nine months,24/36 men and 12/15 women completed questionnaires.
    confounding
    Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
    adverse Findings
    Three serious adverse events: two considered unrelated and one potentially trial-related. Two men were withdrawn for safety concerns.
    transfer Limits
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    jadad
    not established
    access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198
      type
      Europe PMC indexed publication metadata and abstract
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      PMID, DOI, title, journal and authors reconciled within the indexed source; full-text appraisal not claimed.
    2. url
      https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:17.676047+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      DOI and normalized title match the Europe PMC record. Bibliographic verification only; not a full-text review.
    3. url
      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/
      type
      Open-access article XML: selected sections inspected
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:31:31.977396+00:00
      identity Verified
      true
      notes
      Inspected randomization, minimization and allocation-ratio change, unblinding, feasibility outcomes, retention and safety events.
    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
      10.21203/rs.3.rs-2543341/v1
      asserted-by
      object
    recommendation Rationale
    Contributes feasibility and safety evidence for a perpetrator programme; the small pilot does not establish efficacy.
    review
    status
    pending
    reviewer
    Not recorded
    assessment Status
    assessed
    assessment Notes
    Indexed abstract plus specified methods/results passages inspected; whole-article appraisal is not claimed. Inspected randomization, minimization and allocation-ratio change, unblinding, feasibility outcomes, retention and safety events.
    identity Verification
    status
    cross-source-verified
    fields

    DOI · title

    limitation
    Not recorded
    source Evidence Hashes
    crossref SHA256
    a8543eb8a51f62c7fb44c96c3a625df385c5e19b9e67a5b19162e9408027cd2c
    article XMLSHA256
    bf47d3ebed5bdf5a9c308d0b157e522fb4e5c31ca65f8e45c2b2f4a1163f0a32
    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
    45ae91805c769720ff13c2d9c914596957e6344cb0cf93edb0bfbf1776ee751b
    prior Revision
    r1-45ae91805c76
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-38678198
    doi
    10.1186/s12889-024-18640-5
    pmid
    38678198
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    4bba52e4e265e4cff46a438160f539d54e0a8c4f8ea10a631bc59ab0ad33a3b9
    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/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    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
    rct
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    basis
    Computer minimization with probabilistic component; allocation ratio changed from 1:1 to 2:1 during recruitment.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

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

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1186%2Fs12889-024-18640-5 · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    review Scope
    selected-methods
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    1
    masking Roles
    participants
    Unblinded; explicitly reported.
    providers
    Allocation known to programme coordinator.
    assessors
    Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
    analysts
    Not established from inspected sections.
    jadad
    status
    unassessed
    score
    Not recorded
    evidence
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
    intervention
    description
    Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support
    dose
    23 weeks plus average three individual sessions
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Usual care; no active male treatment; control partners signposted to services
    outcomes
    1. name
      Feasibility/retention
      follow Up
      Nine months
      result
      Trial procedures feasible
      effect Estimate
      67%men; 80%women retained
      uncertainty
      Small pilot; not powered for efficacy
      primary Status
      Primary feasibility objective
    access
    level
    selected-methods
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

    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
    6c2b56d99b8eaff3269810b2097c813201d43deff0521a9b6ab5ed7cdd047b43
    revision
    audit-r2-6c2b56d99b8e
    archive Entries
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    chapter Number
    5
    topic Id
    domestic-family-violence
    topic Title
    Domestic & Family Violence
    trust Score
    2
evidence
evidence Type
Randomized pilot and feasibility trial
intervention
Voluntary group perpetrator programme with partner support 23 weeks plus average three individual sessions
comparator
Usual care; no active male treatment; control partners signposted to services
sample
36 men randomized(22 intervention,14 usual care); 15 partners enrolled
measurement
Feasibility/retention
timing
Nine months
trial Id
ISRCTN71797549
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
selected-methods
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/38678198 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38678198/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11055266/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    Feasibility/retention
    follow Up
    Nine months
    result
    Trial procedures feasible
    effect Estimate
    67%men; 80%women retained
    uncertainty
    Small pilot; not powered for efficacy
    primary Status
    Primary feasibility objective
quality
risk Of Bias
Small feasibility sample and low partner recruitment; positive qualitative reports are not comparative effectiveness evidence. Registration was retrospective.
attrition
At nine months,24/36 men and 12/15 women completed questionnaires.
confounding
Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
adverse Findings
Three serious adverse events: two considered unrelated and one potentially trial-related. Two men were withdrawn for safety concerns.
transfer Limits
Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
jadad
not established
masking Roles
participants
Unblinded; explicitly reported.
providers
Allocation known to programme coordinator.
assessors
Research team unblinded; explicitly reported.
analysts
Not established from inspected sections.
population
relation
direct
population
Male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies male domestic-abuse perpetrators and their current/ex-female partners.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Small unblinded feasibility trial; recruitment and allocation ratio changed. Low partner recruitment and safety events limit any claim of effectiveness or safety.
jadad
status
unassessed
score
Not recorded
condition Evidence
None recorded
conditions
None recorded
topic Trust Scores

2

full Text
status
not-indexed
retrieval Available
false

Open this publication in the interactive library