Universal Informatics · Research reading room

Comparing Fathers for Change Individual Therapy for IPV Use to the Duluth Model Intervention in Individual and Group Formats.

Stover CS; Shayani DR; Ramos KL; Sullivan TP; Hayes A · Journal of interpersonal violence · 2025 · Randomized pilot trial

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

Recorded summary

Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.

Recorded limitations

Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.

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 trial
assessment
category
rct
is Randomized Controlled Trial
true
basis
Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

review Scope
abstract
trust Factor
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
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
unassessed
score
Not recorded
evidence
evidence Type
Randomized pilot trial
intervention
Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model 18 weeks of weekly treatment
comparator
Group Duluth model; individual-treatment arms also compared
sample
82 fathers randomized to three conditions
measurement
IPV use/attendance/alliance; Emotion regulation
timing
During18 weeks; Pre/post
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    IPV use/attendance/alliance
    follow Up
    During18 weeks
    result
    Favored individual formats
    effect Estimate
    Not supplied in abstract
    uncertainty
    Self-reports; pilot sample
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Emotion regulation
    follow Up
    Pre/post
    result
    Improved within F4C only
    effect Estimate
    Not supplied in abstract
    uncertainty
    Within-group finding
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
jadad
not established
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
Fathers reporting IPV use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies fathers reporting ipv use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
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-41045209
doi
10.1177/08862605251372568
pmid
41045209
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-c5ab2e9a9936
source Content Hash
c5ab2e9a9936f53d20028ecd9ddad090858476095bb234c975808e0e4d30f536
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

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
e16f659d45df206c3bd434c87c7301bcf798d90448e33ffa8e076b73c694a8d6
prior Revision
r1-e16f659d45df
prior Source
frozen-120
source Verification
id
dv-reviews-41045209
doi
10.1177/08862605251372568
pmid
41045209
fresh Metadata
Europe PMC core
metadata Retrieved
true
metadata SHA256
ea101fa23e8ebbbedc778b786d3325ee9f66c85f0086749e6fba151c8c1f4651
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/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568

applied Proposals

methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

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
trial-paper:41045209
family Linkage Uncertain
true
approaches
None recorded
id
dv-reviews-41045209
aliases
None recorded
title
Comparing Fathers for Change Individual Therapy for IPV Use to the Duluth Model Intervention in Individual and Group Formats.
journal
Journal of interpersonal violence
neurotransmitters
None recorded
year
2025
authors
Stover CS; Shayani DR; Ramos KL; Sullivan TP; Hayes A
design
Randomized pilot trial
kind
Journal article
identity Conflict
Not recorded
doi
10.1177/08862605251372568
pmid
41045209
urls

https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251372568 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

collections

language

categories

Clinical & self-report

targets
None recorded
priority
1
quotes
None recorded
summary
Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.
limitation
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
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
Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

review Scope
abstract
paper Trust Assessment
scope
Paper
status
assessed
score
2
randomized Controlled Trial
true
peer Reviewed
true
blinding
not-confirmed
basis
Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
sources

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

review Scope
abstract
human Approval
false
display Crosses
2
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
journalofinterpersonalviolence
journal Label
Journal of interpersonal violence
chapter Entries
  1. id
    language-dv-dv-reviews-41045209
    aliases
    None recorded
    title
    Comparing Fathers for Change Individual Therapy for IPV Use to the Duluth Model Intervention in Individual and Group Formats.
    authors
    Stover CS; Shayani DR; Ramos KL; Sullivan TP; Hayes A
    year
    2025
    journal
    Journal of interpersonal violence
    doi
    10.1177/08862605251372568
    pmid
    41045209
    urls

    https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251372568 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/ · https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    collections

    language

    categories

    Clinical & self-report

    targets
    None recorded
    neurotransmitters
    None recorded
    conditions
    None recorded
    condition Evidence
    None recorded
    age Groups

    adults

    age Population
    record Id
    dv-reviews-41045209
    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/41045209
    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 trial
    origin
    approved-dv-20261101
    priority
    1
    quotes
    None recorded
    finding
    Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.
    summary
    Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.
    limitation
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    evidence
    evidence Type
    Randomized pilot trial
    intervention
    Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model 18 weeks of weekly treatment
    comparator
    Group Duluth model; individual-treatment arms also compared
    sample
    82 fathers randomized to three conditions
    measurement
    IPV use/attendance/alliance; Emotion regulation
    timing
    During18 weeks; Pre/post
    trial Id
    relationship Note
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    measured Genes
    None recorded
    pathways
    None recorded
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    outcomes
    1. name
      IPV use/attendance/alliance
      follow Up
      During18 weeks
      result
      Favored individual formats
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Self-reports; pilot sample
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Emotion regulation
      follow Up
      Pre/post
      result
      Improved within F4C only
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Within-group finding
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    jadad
    not established
    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
    Fathers reporting IPV use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies fathers reporting ipv use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    study Design Assessment
    category
    rct
    is Randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    basis
    Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    review Scope
    abstract
    paper Trust Assessment
    scope
    Paper
    status
    assessed
    score
    2
    randomized Controlled Trial
    true
    peer Reviewed
    true
    blinding
    not-confirmed
    basis
    Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    review Scope
    abstract
    human Approval
    false
    display Crosses
    2
    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
    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-c5ab2e9a9936
    source Content Hash
    c5ab2e9a9936f53d20028ecd9ddad090858476095bb234c975808e0e4d30f536
    source Access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    study Family Id
    trial-paper:41045209
    family Linkage Uncertain
    true
    approaches
    None recorded
    record Id
    dv-reviews-41045209
    source Pages
    None recorded
    editorial Audit
    auditor
    Codex (AI)
    completed At
    2026-10-31T05:11:05.655793+00:00
    prior Content Hash
    e16f659d45df206c3bd434c87c7301bcf798d90448e33ffa8e076b73c694a8d6
    prior Revision
    r1-e16f659d45df
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-41045209
    doi
    10.1177/08862605251372568
    pmid
    41045209
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ea101fa23e8ebbbedc778b786d3325ee9f66c85f0086749e6fba151c8c1f4651
    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/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568

    applied Proposals

    methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

    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-41045209
    title
    Comparing Fathers for Change Individual Therapy for IPV Use to the Duluth Model Intervention in Individual and Group Formats.
    authors

    Stover CS · Shayani DR · Ramos KL · Sullivan TP · Hayes A

    year
    2025
    journal
    Journal of interpersonal violence
    doi
    10.1177/08862605251372568
    pmid
    41045209
    trial Registration
    None recorded
    collection
    language
    intervention Family
    Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model
    publication Type
    Randomized pilot trial
    study Family Id
    trial-paper:41045209
    family Linkage Uncertain
    true
    independent Primary Study
    true
    existing Repository Matches
    None recorded
    relevance
    relation
    direct
    population
    Fathers reporting IPV use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies fathers reporting ipv use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    age
    groups

    adults

    reported Range
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    youth Scope
    Not recorded
    country
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    setting
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    sample Size
    randomized
    82
    analyzed
    Not recorded
    description
    82 fathers randomized to three conditions
    intervention
    description
    Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model
    dose
    18 weeks of weekly treatment
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Group Duluth model; individual-treatment arms also compared
    outcomes
    1. name
      IPV use/attendance/alliance
      follow Up
      During18 weeks
      result
      Favored individual formats
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Self-reports; pilot sample
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Emotion regulation
      follow Up
      Pre/post
      result
      Improved within F4C only
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Within-group finding
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    finding
    Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.
    limitation
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    design
    type
    Randomized pilot trial
    randomization Evidence
    Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
    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
    1
    cross Rationale
    Random allocation is explicitly described; double blinding not established.
    quality
    risk Of Bias
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    attrition
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    confounding
    Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    transfer Limits
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    jadad
    not established
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

    retrieved At
    2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
    sources
    1. url
      https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209
      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/10.1177%2F08862605251372568
      type
      Crossref publisher-deposited bibliographic metadata
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T07:26:22.675308+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://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291
      type
      Grant-matched provisional ClinicalTrials.gov record
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
      identity Verified
      false
      notes
      Grant match confirmed; exact82-person publication/60-person registry sample mapping unresolved.
    4. url
      https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf
      type
      Protocol attached to provisional registry
      retrieved At
      2026-10-30T08:36:53.499059+00:00
      identity Verified
      false
      notes
      Selected PhaseI/II, eligibility, analysis and safety sections inspected; later amended plan is not proof of paper implementation.
    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
    Contributes pilot evidence comparing Fathers for Change with individual and group Duluth formats, keeping within-group emotion-regulation improvement separate from comparative effects.
    review
    status
    pending
    reviewer
    Not recorded
    assessment Status
    assessed
    assessment Notes
    NCT04165291 and the PubMed paper share grant R21HD099318. The uploaded2023 protocol includes a three-arm PhaseI planned75 fathers and a separate later two-arm PhaseII; structured registry results describe60 fathers/two arms, while the paper reports82/three arms. This supports a likely family link but does not reconcile the publication sample or validate transfer of registry outcome/harms denominators. Keep registration provisional, paper family ID, one cross and abstract access level.
    identity Verification
    status
    cross-source-verified
    fields

    DOI · title

    limitation
    Not recorded
    source Evidence Hashes
    crossref SHA256
    3e6eefb9ec8de7c443a651bb4b6fef467ceb7f93c7cbb93c9d19368db4cd1999
    review Readiness
    ai-editorial-audit-complete-release-pending
    review Ready
    true
    research Lane
    reviews-prevention
    later Review Evidence
    id
    dv-reviews-41045209
    title
    Comparing Fathers for Change Individual Therapy for IPV Use to the Duluth Model Intervention in Individual and Group Formats.
    prior Revision
    r1-e16f659d45df
    prior Content Hash
    e16f659d45df206c3bd434c87c7301bcf798d90448e33ffa8e076b73c694a8d6
    original
    review Ready
    true
    review Readiness
    ready-with-explicit-access-limits
    finding
    Individual-treatment participants attended more sessions, reported stronger alliances and less IPV; only Fathers for Change improved emotion regulation pre/post.
    limitation
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    adverse Findings
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    crosses
    1
    access
    abstract
    action
    supplement
    hold Current Revision
    false
    cross Verification On Hold
    false
    new Evidence
    The paper and registry share grant R21HD099318. The protocol includes a planned 75-person three-arm phase and later two-arm phase; structured registry results describe 60/two arms, whereas the publication reports 82/three arms.
    revised Interpretation
    Likely program-family linkage does not establish an exact results-population match. Do not transfer registry harms, attrition, null comparisons or masking into this paper.
    required Before Approval
    No new hold on the limited abstract interpretation. Phase/sample reconciliation is required for fuller registry-derived claims.
    source URLs

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/ · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    source Location
    Paper grant; protocol pp. 3, 7, 17; registry results
    assessment Changed
    false
    human Approval
    false
    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
    e16f659d45df206c3bd434c87c7301bcf798d90448e33ffa8e076b73c694a8d6
    prior Revision
    r1-e16f659d45df
    prior Source
    frozen-120
    source Verification
    id
    dv-reviews-41045209
    doi
    10.1177/08862605251372568
    pmid
    41045209
    fresh Metadata
    Europe PMC core
    metadata Retrieved
    true
    metadata SHA256
    ea101fa23e8ebbbedc778b786d3325ee9f66c85f0086749e6fba151c8c1f4651
    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/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568

    applied Proposals

    methods-prevention/proposed-revisions.json

    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
    Methods explicitly report82 fathers randomly assigned to F4C, individual Duluth or group Duluth.
    sources

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    review Scope
    abstract
    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/41045209 · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F08862605251372568 · https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04165291 · https://cdn.clinicaltrials.gov/large-docs/91/NCT04165291/Prot_SAP_000.pdf

    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.
    jadad
    status
    unassessed
    score
    Not recorded
    evidence
    population
    relation
    direct
    population
    Fathers reporting IPV use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment
    exposure Evidence
    The accessed publication explicitly identifies fathers reporting ipv use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment.
    rationale
    Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
    transfer Limit
    Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
    intervention
    description
    Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model
    dose
    18 weeks of weekly treatment
    provider
    Not established from accessed abstract.
    comparator
    Group Duluth model; individual-treatment arms also compared
    outcomes
    1. name
      IPV use/attendance/alliance
      follow Up
      During18 weeks
      result
      Favored individual formats
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Self-reports; pilot sample
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    2. name
      Emotion regulation
      follow Up
      Pre/post
      result
      Improved within F4C only
      effect Estimate
      Not supplied in abstract
      uncertainty
      Within-group finding
      primary Status
      Not established from accessed abstract.
    access
    level
    abstract
    source URLs

    https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

    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
    c5ab2e9a9936f53d20028ecd9ddad090858476095bb234c975808e0e4d30f536
    revision
    audit-r2-c5ab2e9a9936
    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 trial
intervention
Individual Fathers for Change or individual Duluth model 18 weeks of weekly treatment
comparator
Group Duluth model; individual-treatment arms also compared
sample
82 fathers randomized to three conditions
measurement
IPV use/attendance/alliance; Emotion regulation
timing
During18 weeks; Pre/post
trial Id
relationship Note
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct. Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
measured Genes
None recorded
pathways
None recorded
source Access
level
abstract
source URLs

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/41045209 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41045209/

retrieved At
2026-10-30T07:25:20.171273+00:00
outcomes
  1. name
    IPV use/attendance/alliance
    follow Up
    During18 weeks
    result
    Favored individual formats
    effect Estimate
    Not supplied in abstract
    uncertainty
    Self-reports; pilot sample
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
  2. name
    Emotion regulation
    follow Up
    Pre/post
    result
    Improved within F4C only
    effect Estimate
    Not supplied in abstract
    uncertainty
    Within-group finding
    primary Status
    Not established from accessed abstract.
quality
risk Of Bias
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
attrition
Not established from accessed abstract.
confounding
Trial comparability and remaining biases need full methods appraisal.
adverse Findings
Not established from accessed abstract.
transfer Limits
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
jadad
not established
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
Fathers reporting IPV use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment
exposure Evidence
The accessed publication explicitly identifies fathers reporting ipv use in previous 12 months, referred for treatment.
rationale
Direct evidence concerning therapeutic or psychosocial responses to IPV, with survivor and perpetrator findings kept distinct.
transfer Limit
Pilot sample and self-reported outcomes. The emotion-regulation finding is within-group and does not by itself prove superiority.
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