The promotion of well-being among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A systematic review of interventions.

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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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

Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

intervention

Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families. Varied by intervention; no common dose.

comparator

Attention/inactive controls in three trials; five compared active interventions.

sample

Eight independent RCTs represented in 15 publications, totaling 924 participants as reported by the review. These pooled trials are not separately assessed or counted here.

measurement

Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

timing

Immediately post-treatment; 4 months; 8 months; Variable

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result. Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

sections Inspected

Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   Immediately post-treatment

   result

   Pooled benefit for intensive home-based parenting support

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.54; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.13

   uncertainty

   Two studies; specific intervention and clinically affected sample.

   primary Status

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

2. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   4 months

   result

   No clear pooled difference

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23

   uncertainty

   Two studies; no claim of sustained benefit at every time point.

   primary Status

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

3. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   8 months

   result

   Pooled benefit

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.34

   uncertainty

   Two studies; I² reported as 0% but small evidence base.

   primary Status

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

4. name

   PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

   follow Up

   Variable

   result

   Mixed findings; generally not pooled

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Different interventions, comparators and measures prevent a common efficacy conclusion.

   primary Status

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

quality

risk Of Bias

One included study was rated low risk and seven moderate. Independent risk-of-bias review excluded high-risk studies; only limited studies contributed to pooled estimates.

attrition

Included studies were rated by the review as having limited/no attrition bias, but detailed independent attrition reanalysis was not performed.

confounding

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

adverse Findings

Only one trial reported tracking adverse events, preventing a broad safety conclusion.

transfer Limits

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

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

Children and adolescents exposed to IPV, including direct or indirect exposure; child-level outcomes required

exposure Evidence

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

rationale

Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

transfer Limit

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

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-r2-6e2d0ce5b950

source Content Hash

6e2d0ce5b9502179c8df9ddf0f2b9d2e43febb8a3b0b1ad7c0e90542f94cd904

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

sections Inspected

Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and 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-37131508

doi

10.1002/cl2.1049

pmid

37131508

fresh Metadata

Europe PMC core

metadata Retrieved

true

metadata SHA256

988c806e05ae4819ecf40701beb6211602bef43f6dd7ffad283b140adb818bd7

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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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/10.1002/cl2.1049 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37131508/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

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-37131508

   aliases

   None recorded

   title

   The promotion of well-being among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A systematic review of interventions.

   authors

   Latzman NE; Casanueva C; Brinton J; Forman-Hoffman VL

   year

   2019

   journal

   Campbell systematic reviews

   doi

   10.1002/cl2.1049

   pmid

   37131508

   urls

   https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1049 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37131508/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   collections

   language

   categories

   Clinical & self-report · Methods & context

   targets

   None recorded

   neurotransmitters

   None recorded

   conditions

   ptsd

   condition Evidence

   1. id

      ptsd

      evidence

      1. field

         outcomes

         text

         Child externalizing behaviour | Child externalizing behaviour | Child externalizing behaviour | PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

         matched Text

         PTSD

      scope

      Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.

   age Groups

   children · adolescents · youth

   age Population

   record Id

   dv-reviews-cont-37131508

   collections

   language

   groups

   children · adolescents · youth

   reported Ages

   Eligibility required over 75% of participants aged 0–17; individual studies included broader boundaries in some samples.

   youth Scope

   focus

   youth Source Note

   Primary focus.

   source URL

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/

   basis Type

   source-limited-ai-editorial-assessment

   classification Note

   Original age terms: children, adolescents, youth. Programme targets or possible eligibility are not counted as observed ages.

   community Matches

   1. category Id

      domestic-violence

      relation

      direct

   kind

   Review

   design

   Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

   origin

   approved-dv-20261101

   priority

   1

   quotes

   None recorded

   finding

   Two intensive home-based parenting studies supported reduced child externalizing problems immediately after treatment and at eight months, but not four months. Most other outcomes could not be pooled and overall effectiveness remains uncertain.

   summary

   Two intensive home-based parenting studies supported reduced child externalizing problems immediately after treatment and at eight months, but not four months. Most other outcomes could not be pooled and overall effectiveness remains uncertain.

   limitation

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   evidence

   evidence Type

   Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

   intervention

   Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families. Varied by intervention; no common dose.

   comparator

   Attention/inactive controls in three trials; five compared active interventions.

   sample

   Eight independent RCTs represented in 15 publications, totaling 924 participants as reported by the review. These pooled trials are not separately assessed or counted here.

   measurement

   Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

   timing

   Immediately post-treatment; 4 months; 8 months; Variable

   trial Id

   relationship Note

   Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result. Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   measured Genes

   None recorded

   pathways

   None recorded

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

   outcomes

   1. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      Immediately post-treatment

      result

      Pooled benefit for intensive home-based parenting support

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.54; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.13

      uncertainty

      Two studies; specific intervention and clinically affected sample.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      4 months

      result

      No clear pooled difference

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23

      uncertainty

      Two studies; no claim of sustained benefit at every time point.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      8 months

      result

      Pooled benefit

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.34

      uncertainty

      Two studies; I² reported as 0% but small evidence base.

      primary Status

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

   4. name

      PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Mixed findings; generally not pooled

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Different interventions, comparators and measures prevent a common efficacy conclusion.

      primary Status

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

   quality

   risk Of Bias

   One included study was rated low risk and seven moderate. Independent risk-of-bias review excluded high-risk studies; only limited studies contributed to pooled estimates.

   attrition

   Included studies were rated by the review as having limited/no attrition bias, but detailed independent attrition reanalysis was not performed.

   confounding

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   adverse Findings

   Only one trial reported tracking adverse events, preventing a broad safety conclusion.

   transfer Limits

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   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

   Children and adolescents exposed to IPV, including direct or indirect exposure; child-level outcomes required

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

   transfer Limit

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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-r2-6e2d0ce5b950

   source Content Hash

   6e2d0ce5b9502179c8df9ddf0f2b9d2e43febb8a3b0b1ad7c0e90542f94cd904

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

   study Family Id

   review:37131508

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   approaches

   None recorded

   record Id

   dv-reviews-cont-37131508

   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-37131508

   doi

   10.1002/cl2.1049

   pmid

   37131508

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   988c806e05ae4819ecf40701beb6211602bef43f6dd7ffad283b140adb818bd7

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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-37131508

   title

   The promotion of well-being among children exposed to intimate partner violence: A systematic review of interventions.

   authors

   Latzman NE · Casanueva C · Brinton J · Forman-Hoffman VL

   year

   2019

   journal

   Campbell systematic reviews

   doi

   10.1002/cl2.1049

   pmid

   37131508

   trial Registration

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   intervention Family

   Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families.

   publication Type

   Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

   study Family Id

   review:37131508

   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

   Children and adolescents exposed to IPV, including direct or indirect exposure; child-level outcomes required

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

   transfer Limit

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   age

   groups

   children · adolescents · youth

   reported Range

   Eligibility required over 75% of participants aged 0–17; individual studies included broader boundaries in some samples.

   youth Scope

   Primary focus.

   country

   United States (6 studies), Netherlands (1) and India (1).

   setting

   Home-based intensive services and outpatient/community, shelter or inpatient clinical contexts.

   sample Size

   randomized

   Not recorded

   analyzed

   Not recorded

   description

   Eight independent RCTs represented in 15 publications, totaling 924 participants as reported by the review. These pooled trials are not separately assessed or counted here.

   intervention

   description

   Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families.

   dose

   Varied by intervention; no common dose.

   provider

   Different parent-training, therapy and case-management providers; qualifications not reconciled in this assessment.

   comparator

   Attention/inactive controls in three trials; five compared active interventions.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      Immediately post-treatment

      result

      Pooled benefit for intensive home-based parenting support

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.54; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.13

      uncertainty

      Two studies; specific intervention and clinically affected sample.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      4 months

      result

      No clear pooled difference

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23

      uncertainty

      Two studies; no claim of sustained benefit at every time point.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      8 months

      result

      Pooled benefit

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.34

      uncertainty

      Two studies; I² reported as 0% but small evidence base.

      primary Status

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

   4. name

      PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Mixed findings; generally not pooled

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Different interventions, comparators and measures prevent a common efficacy conclusion.

      primary Status

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

   finding

   Two intensive home-based parenting studies supported reduced child externalizing problems immediately after treatment and at eight months, but not four months. Most other outcomes could not be pooled and overall effectiveness remains uncertain.

   limitation

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   design

   type

   Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

   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

   One included study was rated low risk and seven moderate. Independent risk-of-bias review excluded high-risk studies; only limited studies contributed to pooled estimates.

   attrition

   Included studies were rated by the review as having limited/no attrition bias, but detailed independent attrition reanalysis was not performed.

   confounding

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   adverse Findings

   Only one trial reported tracking adverse events, preventing a broad safety conclusion.

   transfer Limits

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   jadad

   not applicable

   access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

   sources

   1. url

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/

      type

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

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+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/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

      type

      Publisher-deposited Crossref bibliographic metadata

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:12:26.092082+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: review-article, Review, Journal Article.

   uncertainty

   This is not an exhaustive correction/retraction search.

   recommendation Rationale

   Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

   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

   70e68ffc7273bbd08cbe93cd538b2f5067b39bb7bff77f31a3543cfdbc1848a3

   crossref SHA256

   33a8fa247b50fb988acc29be394a84e44e27f3d4136219febbec20d299bc56af

   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-37131508

   doi

   10.1002/cl2.1049

   pmid

   37131508

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   988c806e05ae4819ecf40701beb6211602bef43f6dd7ffad283b140adb818bd7

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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/PMC8356495/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   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

   Children and adolescents exposed to IPV, including direct or indirect exposure; child-level outcomes required

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

   transfer Limit

   Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

   intervention

   description

   Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families.

   dose

   Varied by intervention; no common dose.

   provider

   Different parent-training, therapy and case-management providers; qualifications not reconciled in this assessment.

   comparator

   Attention/inactive controls in three trials; five compared active interventions.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      Immediately post-treatment

      result

      Pooled benefit for intensive home-based parenting support

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.54; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.13

      uncertainty

      Two studies; specific intervention and clinically affected sample.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      4 months

      result

      No clear pooled difference

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23

      uncertainty

      Two studies; no claim of sustained benefit at every time point.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Child externalizing behaviour

      follow Up

      8 months

      result

      Pooled benefit

      effect Estimate

      SMD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.34

      uncertainty

      Two studies; I² reported as 0% but small evidence base.

      primary Status

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

   4. name

      PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

      follow Up

      Variable

      result

      Mixed findings; generally not pooled

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Different interventions, comparators and measures prevent a common efficacy conclusion.

      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/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

   citation Snapshot

   count

   Not recorded

   source

   Not recorded

   retrieved At

   Not recorded

   status

   not-assessed

   provenance

   Discovered by AI

   content Hash

   6e2d0ce5b9502179c8df9ddf0f2b9d2e43febb8a3b0b1ad7c0e90542f94cd904

   revision

   audit-r2-6e2d0ce5b950

   archive Entries

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   chapter Number

   5

   topic Id

   domestic-family-violence

   topic Title

   Domestic & Family Violence

   trust Score

   2

evidence Type

Systematic review with limited meta-analysis

intervention

Psychosocial interventions including parenting support, child-parent psychotherapy, CBT and case management directed at children, nonoffending parents or families. Varied by intervention; no common dose.

comparator

Attention/inactive controls in three trials; five compared active interventions.

sample

Eight independent RCTs represented in 15 publications, totaling 924 participants as reported by the review. These pooled trials are not separately assessed or counted here.

measurement

Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; Child externalizing behaviour; PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

timing

Immediately post-treatment; 4 months; 8 months; Variable

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result. Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8356495/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC8356495/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1002%2Fcl2.1049

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:18.653478+00:00

sections Inspected

Eligibility, exposure definition, protocol deviations and risk-of-bias methods · Study/family characteristics, intervention/comparator types and exposure ascertainment · Externalizing, PTSD, other outcomes and sensitivity analyses · Evidence quality, harms reporting and limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   Immediately post-treatment

   result

   Pooled benefit for intensive home-based parenting support

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.54; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.13

   uncertainty

   Two studies; specific intervention and clinically affected sample.

   primary Status

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

2. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   4 months

   result

   No clear pooled difference

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.16; 95% CI -0.55 to 0.23

   uncertainty

   Two studies; no claim of sustained benefit at every time point.

   primary Status

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

3. name

   Child externalizing behaviour

   follow Up

   8 months

   result

   Pooled benefit

   effect Estimate

   SMD -0.74; 95% CI -1.15 to -0.34

   uncertainty

   Two studies; I² reported as 0% but small evidence base.

   primary Status

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

4. name

   PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

   follow Up

   Variable

   result

   Mixed findings; generally not pooled

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Different interventions, comparators and measures prevent a common efficacy conclusion.

   primary Status

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

quality

risk Of Bias

One included study was rated low risk and seven moderate. Independent risk-of-bias review excluded high-risk studies; only limited studies contributed to pooled estimates.

attrition

Included studies were rated by the review as having limited/no attrition bias, but detailed independent attrition reanalysis was not performed.

confounding

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

adverse Findings

Only one trial reported tracking adverse events, preventing a broad safety conclusion.

transfer Limits

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

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

Children and adolescents exposed to IPV, including direct or indirect exposure; child-level outcomes required

exposure Evidence

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

rationale

Adds a child-focused comparative synthesis that separates eight study families from fifteen reports and retains the null intermediate follow-up result.

transfer Limit

Only eight eligible trials; heterogeneity prevented most meta-analyses. Restriction to low/moderate-risk studies was a protocol deviation. Most studies inferred child exposure from parental IPV reports; one study tracked adverse events.

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

1. id

   ptsd

   evidence

   1. field

      outcomes

      text

      Child externalizing behaviour | Child externalizing behaviour | Child externalizing behaviour | PTSD, internalizing and other child outcomes

      matched Text

      PTSD

   scope

   Study population or investigated outcome; not a diagnosis or efficacy claim.

ptsd

2

status

not-indexed

retrieval Available

false