The Effectiveness of Culturally Specific Male Domestic Violence Offender Intervention Programs on Behavior Changes and Mental Health: A Systematic Review.

category

review

is Randomized Controlled Trial

false

basis

Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

sources

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

review Scope

selected-methods

scope

Paper

status

assessed

score

1

randomized Controlled Trial

false

peer Reviewed

true

blinding

not-applicable

basis

Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

sources

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

review Scope

selected-methods

human Approval

false

display Crosses

1

masking Roles

participants

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

providers

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

assessors

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

analysts

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

rating Scale

library-trust-factor/1-3

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

evidence Type

Mixed-methods systematic review

intervention

Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing. Not established from the inspected source sections.

comparator

Mostly uncontrolled or qualitative evaluations; one randomized and one case-control comparison.

sample

10 publications; approximately 1,950 participants reported. Two studies did not report sample size. Four qualitative evaluations, three uncontrolled pre/post studies, one RCT, one case series and one case-control study.

measurement

Violence/recidivism; Psychopathology and communication

timing

Variable, including multi-year follow-up; Variable

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence. Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

sections Inspected

Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Violence/recidivism

   follow Up

   Variable, including multi-year follow-up

   result

   Mostly reported improvement in uncontrolled or mixed-methods studies; one controlled comparison was unfavorable

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   No meta-analysis or defensible pooled comparative estimate.

   primary Status

   Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

2. name

   Psychopathology and communication

   follow Up

   Variable

   result

   Some reports described improvement

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Predominantly self-report or qualitative findings; adaptation-specific causal effect not isolated.

   primary Status

   Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

quality

risk Of Bias

Two reviewers used CASP for qualitative studies and NHLBI design-specific tools for quantitative studies. Only one included study used an RCT design; study-level comparative efficacy remains weak.

attrition

Completion and satisfaction were inconsistently measured. One traditional-healing report combined escalating violence with loss to follow-up, so these outcomes cannot be separated from the review narrative.

confounding

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

adverse Findings

One controlled study reported higher violent recidivism with treatment and similar IPV recidivism. Another narrative combined escalation with loss to follow-up; no pooled harm rate is available.

transfer Limits

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

jadad

not applicable

masking Roles

participants

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

providers

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

assessors

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

analysts

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

population

relation

direct

population

Male domestic-violence perpetrators from selected ethnic minority or non-Anglo-Saxon populations

exposure Evidence

Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention.

rationale

Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

transfer Limit

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

count

Not recorded

source

Not recorded

retrieved At

Not recorded

status

not-assessed

language

Not recorded

status

approved-for-publication

approved By

Ben Korbel

approved At

2026-11-01

assessment

AI assessed; human approved for publication

scope

Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.

source Revision

audit-r2-95be3a7dc082

source Content Hash

95be3a7dc0827845e6b6358a369dccfda891170bdd1c7ca45e5bc8c83ad5ec9e

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

sections Inspected

Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

auditor

Codex (AI)

completed At

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

prior Content Hash

Not recorded

prior Revision

Not recorded

prior Source

continuation-10

source Verification

id

dv-reviews-cont-36429899

doi

10.3390/ijerph192215180

pmid

36429899

fresh Metadata

Europe PMC core

metadata Retrieved

true

metadata SHA256

e50c07673f8171af3d62d91b054fe0f3af28c8f23696f66b81118746e5caeeb0

claim Check

Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.

sources

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

applied Proposals

None recorded

method

AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.

limitations

Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215180 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36429899/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

language

Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

count

Not recorded

source

Not recorded

retrieved At

Not recorded

status

not-assessed

category

review

is Randomized Controlled Trial

false

basis

Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

sources

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

review Scope

selected-methods

scope

Paper

status

assessed

score

1

randomized Controlled Trial

false

peer Reviewed

true

blinding

not-applicable

basis

Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

sources

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

review Scope

selected-methods

human Approval

false

display Crosses

1

masking Roles

participants

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

providers

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

assessors

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

analysts

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

rating Scale

library-trust-factor/1-3

language

Not recorded

1. key

   language:domestic-family-violence

   title

   Domestic & Family Violence

   collection

   language

   trust Score

   2

1. id

   language-dv-dv-reviews-cont-36429899

   aliases

   None recorded

   title

   The Effectiveness of Culturally Specific Male Domestic Violence Offender Intervention Programs on Behavior Changes and Mental Health: A Systematic Review.

   authors

   Satyen L; Hansen A; Green JL; Zark L

   year

   2022

   journal

   International journal of environmental research and public health

   doi

   10.3390/ijerph192215180

   pmid

   36429899

   urls

   https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215180 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36429899/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   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-cont-36429899

   collections

   language

   groups

   adults

   reported Ages

   Not established from the inspected source sections.

   youth Scope

   Not recorded

   youth Source Note

   Not recorded

   source URL

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/

   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

   Mixed-methods systematic review

   origin

   approved-dv-20261101

   priority

   1

   quotes

   None recorded

   finding

   Most publications described improvement, but predominantly uncontrolled designs cannot establish that cultural adaptation caused benefit. One controlled study found higher violent recidivism in treatment and no IPV recidivism advantage.

   summary

   Most publications described improvement, but predominantly uncontrolled designs cannot establish that cultural adaptation caused benefit. One controlled study found higher violent recidivism in treatment and no IPV recidivism advantage.

   limitation

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   evidence

   evidence Type

   Mixed-methods systematic review

   intervention

   Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing. Not established from the inspected source sections.

   comparator

   Mostly uncontrolled or qualitative evaluations; one randomized and one case-control comparison.

   sample

   10 publications; approximately 1,950 participants reported. Two studies did not report sample size. Four qualitative evaluations, three uncontrolled pre/post studies, one RCT, one case series and one case-control study.

   measurement

   Violence/recidivism; Psychopathology and communication

   timing

   Variable, including multi-year follow-up; Variable

   trial Id

   relationship Note

   Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence. Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   measured Genes

   None recorded

   pathways

   None recorded

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

   outcomes

   1. name

      Violence/recidivism

      follow Up

      Variable, including multi-year follow-up

      result

      Mostly reported improvement in uncontrolled or mixed-methods studies; one controlled comparison was unfavorable

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No meta-analysis or defensible pooled comparative estimate.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   2. name

      Psychopathology and communication

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Some reports described improvement

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Predominantly self-report or qualitative findings; adaptation-specific causal effect not isolated.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   quality

   risk Of Bias

   Two reviewers used CASP for qualitative studies and NHLBI design-specific tools for quantitative studies. Only one included study used an RCT design; study-level comparative efficacy remains weak.

   attrition

   Completion and satisfaction were inconsistently measured. One traditional-healing report combined escalating violence with loss to follow-up, so these outcomes cannot be separated from the review narrative.

   confounding

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   adverse Findings

   One controlled study reported higher violent recidivism with treatment and similar IPV recidivism. Another narrative combined escalation with loss to follow-up; no pooled harm rate is available.

   transfer Limits

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   jadad

   not applicable

   masking Roles

   participants

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   providers

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   assessors

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   analysts

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   population

   relation

   direct

   population

   Male domestic-violence perpetrators from selected ethnic minority or non-Anglo-Saxon populations

   exposure Evidence

   Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention.

   rationale

   Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

   transfer Limit

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   study Design Assessment

   category

   review

   is Randomized Controlled Trial

   false

   basis

   Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   review Scope

   selected-methods

   paper Trust Assessment

   scope

   Paper

   status

   assessed

   score

   1

   randomized Controlled Trial

   false

   peer Reviewed

   true

   blinding

   not-applicable

   basis

   Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   review Scope

   selected-methods

   human Approval

   false

   display Crosses

   1

   masking Roles

   participants

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   providers

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   assessors

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   analysts

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   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-r2-95be3a7dc082

   source Content Hash

   95be3a7dc0827845e6b6358a369dccfda891170bdd1c7ca45e5bc8c83ad5ec9e

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

   study Family Id

   review:36429899

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   approaches

   None recorded

   record Id

   dv-reviews-cont-36429899

   source Pages

   None recorded

   editorial Audit

   auditor

   Codex (AI)

   completed At

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

   prior Content Hash

   Not recorded

   prior Revision

   Not recorded

   prior Source

   continuation-10

   source Verification

   id

   dv-reviews-cont-36429899

   doi

   10.3390/ijerph192215180

   pmid

   36429899

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   e50c07673f8171af3d62d91b054fe0f3af28c8f23696f66b81118746e5caeeb0

   claim Check

   Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   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-cont-36429899

   title

   The Effectiveness of Culturally Specific Male Domestic Violence Offender Intervention Programs on Behavior Changes and Mental Health: A Systematic Review.

   authors

   Satyen L · Hansen A · Green JL · Zark L

   year

   2022

   journal

   International journal of environmental research and public health

   doi

   10.3390/ijerph192215180

   pmid

   36429899

   trial Registration

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   intervention Family

   Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing.

   publication Type

   Mixed-methods systematic review

   study Family Id

   review:36429899

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   independent Primary Study

   false

   existing Repository Matches

   None recorded

   frozen Batch Publication Matches

   None recorded

   related Evidence Family Records

   None recorded

   relevance

   relation

   direct

   population

   Male domestic-violence perpetrators from selected ethnic minority or non-Anglo-Saxon populations

   exposure Evidence

   Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention.

   rationale

   Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

   transfer Limit

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   age

   groups

   adults

   reported Range

   Not established from the inspected source sections.

   youth Scope

   Not recorded

   country

   Six studies in North America, three in Europe and one in Asia.

   setting

   Predominantly group perpetrator programmes; culturally adapted delivery across selected populations.

   sample Size

   randomized

   Not recorded

   analyzed

   Not recorded

   description

   10 publications; approximately 1,950 participants reported. Two studies did not report sample size. Four qualitative evaluations, three uncontrolled pre/post studies, one RCT, one case series and one case-control study.

   intervention

   description

   Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing.

   dose

   Not established from the inspected source sections.

   provider

   Culturally knowledgeable or bicultural facilitators; some programmes involved traditional healers.

   comparator

   Mostly uncontrolled or qualitative evaluations; one randomized and one case-control comparison.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Violence/recidivism

      follow Up

      Variable, including multi-year follow-up

      result

      Mostly reported improvement in uncontrolled or mixed-methods studies; one controlled comparison was unfavorable

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No meta-analysis or defensible pooled comparative estimate.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   2. name

      Psychopathology and communication

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Some reports described improvement

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Predominantly self-report or qualitative findings; adaptation-specific causal effect not isolated.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   finding

   Most publications described improvement, but predominantly uncontrolled designs cannot establish that cultural adaptation caused benefit. One controlled study found higher violent recidivism in treatment and no IPV recidivism advantage.

   limitation

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   design

   type

   Mixed-methods systematic review

   randomization Evidence

   Evidence synthesis or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

   masking

   participants

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   providers

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   assessors

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   analysts

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   crosses

   0

   cross Rationale

   Evidence syntheses receive no trial-design crosses.

   quality

   risk Of Bias

   Two reviewers used CASP for qualitative studies and NHLBI design-specific tools for quantitative studies. Only one included study used an RCT design; study-level comparative efficacy remains weak.

   attrition

   Completion and satisfaction were inconsistently measured. One traditional-healing report combined escalating violence with loss to follow-up, so these outcomes cannot be separated from the review narrative.

   confounding

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   adverse Findings

   One controlled study reported higher violent recidivism with treatment and similar IPV recidivism. Another narrative combined escalation with loss to follow-up; no pooled harm rate is available.

   transfer Limits

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   jadad

   not applicable

   access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

   sources

   1. url

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/

      type

      Open-access article archived in PMC; XML retrieved through Europe PMC

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

      identity Verified

      true

      notes

      Methods and results sections listed in access.sectionsInspected were inspected. Whole-article formal appraisal and numerical reconstruction are not claimed.

   2. url

      https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

      type

      Publisher-deposited Crossref bibliographic metadata

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:12:24.786427+00:00

      identity Verified

      true

      notes

      DOI and normalized title match retained Europe PMC metadata.

   publication Status

   status

   Published journal article

   correction Retraction Check

   Crossref relation and update-to metadata inspected; no linked correction or retraction was returned. Retained Europe PMC publication types: Systematic Review, review-article, Journal Article.

   uncertainty

   This is not an exhaustive correction/retraction search.

   recommendation Rationale

   Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

   review

   status

   pending

   reviewer

   Not recorded

   assessment Status

   assessed

   assessment Notes

   Bounded source-supported assessment of selected methods and results, not complete full-text appraisal. Pooled studies are never added to the primary-study count.

   review Ready

   true

   review Readiness

   ai-editorial-audit-complete-release-pending

   source Evidence Hashes

   article XMLSHA256

   6f5a6d5d2099d3290d334aa158e471d491bbece38c085b894daf3c3c43698faf

   crossref SHA256

   546f887eb5212f0898c92c85d89be86e5bbace0b249cb7d67c29922fe81a2df4

   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

   Not recorded

   prior Revision

   Not recorded

   prior Source

   continuation-10

   source Verification

   id

   dv-reviews-cont-36429899

   doi

   10.3390/ijerph192215180

   pmid

   36429899

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   e50c07673f8171af3d62d91b054fe0f3af28c8f23696f66b81118746e5caeeb0

   claim Check

   Headline finding/design/limitations compared with indexed abstract or accessible primary evidence; retained methods amendments separately adjudicated.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   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 or secondary meta-regression; this publication does not randomize participants. Included-study design labels do not confer trial crosses.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   review Scope

   selected-methods

   paper Trust Assessment

   scope

   Paper

   status

   assessed

   score

   1

   randomized Controlled Trial

   false

   peer Reviewed

   true

   blinding

   not-applicable

   basis

   Evidence syntheses receive no trial-design crosses.

   sources

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   review Scope

   selected-methods

   human Approval

   false

   display Crosses

   0

   masking Roles

   participants

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   providers

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   assessors

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   analysts

   Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

   jadad

   status

   not-applicable

   score

   Not recorded

   evidence

   population

   relation

   direct

   population

   Male domestic-violence perpetrators from selected ethnic minority or non-Anglo-Saxon populations

   exposure Evidence

   Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention.

   rationale

   Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

   transfer Limit

   Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

   intervention

   description

   Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing.

   dose

   Not established from the inspected source sections.

   provider

   Culturally knowledgeable or bicultural facilitators; some programmes involved traditional healers.

   comparator

   Mostly uncontrolled or qualitative evaluations; one randomized and one case-control comparison.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Violence/recidivism

      follow Up

      Variable, including multi-year follow-up

      result

      Mostly reported improvement in uncontrolled or mixed-methods studies; one controlled comparison was unfavorable

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No meta-analysis or defensible pooled comparative estimate.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   2. name

      Psychopathology and communication

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Some reports described improvement

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Predominantly self-report or qualitative findings; adaptation-specific causal effect not isolated.

      primary Status

      Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

   access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

   citation Snapshot

   count

   Not recorded

   source

   Not recorded

   retrieved At

   Not recorded

   status

   not-assessed

   provenance

   Discovered by AI

   content Hash

   95be3a7dc0827845e6b6358a369dccfda891170bdd1c7ca45e5bc8c83ad5ec9e

   revision

   audit-r2-95be3a7dc082

   archive Entries

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   chapter Number

   5

   topic Id

   domestic-family-violence

   topic Title

   Domestic & Family Violence

   trust Score

   2

evidence Type

Mixed-methods systematic review

intervention

Culturally specific perpetrator programmes using appropriate languages, culturally knowledgeable facilitators, discussion of gender norms and sometimes traditional healing. Not established from the inspected source sections.

comparator

Mostly uncontrolled or qualitative evaluations; one randomized and one case-control comparison.

sample

10 publications; approximately 1,950 participants reported. Two studies did not report sample size. Four qualitative evaluations, three uncontrolled pre/post studies, one RCT, one case series and one case-control study.

measurement

Violence/recidivism; Psychopathology and communication

timing

Variable, including multi-year follow-up; Variable

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence. Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9690755/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC9690755/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.3390%2Fijerph192215180

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.291966+00:00

sections Inspected

Materials and Methods: search, selection, design characteristics, quality assessment and sample · Results: programme content, recurrence, psychopathology, communication and adverse/null comparison · Discussion limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Violence/recidivism

   follow Up

   Variable, including multi-year follow-up

   result

   Mostly reported improvement in uncontrolled or mixed-methods studies; one controlled comparison was unfavorable

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   No meta-analysis or defensible pooled comparative estimate.

   primary Status

   Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

2. name

   Psychopathology and communication

   follow Up

   Variable

   result

   Some reports described improvement

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Predominantly self-report or qualitative findings; adaptation-specific causal effect not isolated.

   primary Status

   Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.

quality

risk Of Bias

Two reviewers used CASP for qualitative studies and NHLBI design-specific tools for quantitative studies. Only one included study used an RCT design; study-level comparative efficacy remains weak.

attrition

Completion and satisfaction were inconsistently measured. One traditional-healing report combined escalating violence with loss to follow-up, so these outcomes cannot be separated from the review narrative.

confounding

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

adverse Findings

One controlled study reported higher violent recidivism with treatment and similar IPV recidivism. Another narrative combined escalation with loss to follow-up; no pooled harm rate is available.

transfer Limits

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

jadad

not applicable

masking Roles

participants

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

providers

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

assessors

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

analysts

Not applicable to this evidence-synthesis publication; primary-trial masking was not newly verified.

population

relation

direct

population

Male domestic-violence perpetrators from selected ethnic minority or non-Anglo-Saxon populations

exposure Evidence

Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention.

rationale

Adds culturally relevant intervention context while preserving the negative controlled finding and limits of largely uncontrolled evidence.

transfer Limit

Small and culturally restricted evidence base, inconsistent outcomes and heavy reliance on perpetrator reports. The review text also contains a cross-reference mismatch when attributing one study’s success rate; no exact success percentage is carried forward.

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

2

status

not-indexed

retrieval Available

false