Effectiveness of Father-Focused Interventions to Prevent or Reduce Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy and Early Parenthood: A Systematic Review.
Wynter K; Francis LM; Borgkvist A; Dixson B; D'Souza L; Duursma E; May C; Sher L; George JS · Trauma, violence & abuse · 2025 · Systematic review
Original publication · Original publication · Original publication · Original publication
Recorded summary
Only three of twelve publications with comparison groups reported more robust adjusted evidence of reduced IPV; all three were in lower- or middle-income settings. Other controlled findings were null, limited to particular outcomes, or no longer evident at later follow-up.
Recorded limitations
Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
Evidence and provenance
Chapter Trust Factor uses a minimum of three distinct qualifying studies. Publication records retain their own evidence and assessment.
Study design and assessment
- design
- Systematic review
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- review Scope
- selected-methods
- trust Factor
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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
- evidence
- evidence Type
- Systematic review
- intervention
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms. Varied; review median follow-up 7 months and maximum up to 9 years.
- comparator
- Other interventions, untreated/usual-care comparisons or pre-intervention scores.
- sample
- 15 publications reporting at least 10,816 participants. Twelve reported intervention and comparison groups; three reported single-group repeated measures. Publication totals are not independently verified unique cohorts.
- measurement
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization; Persistence of benefit
- timing
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months; Study-specific
- trial Id
- PROSPERO CRD42021228822
- relationship Note
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV. Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- measured Genes
- None recorded
- pathways
- None recorded
- source Access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- outcomes
- name
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization
- follow Up
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months
- result
- Three adjusted controlled analyses favored intervention; remaining evidence mixed
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled estimate. Primary prevention and treatment of known IPV are distinct.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- name
- Persistence of benefit
- follow Up
- Study-specific
- result
- Some short-term psychological-IPV differences were absent at later follow-up
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled durability estimate.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- quality
- risk Of Bias
- QuADS scores ranged 13–27 of 39 (median 22). One reviewer assessed all papers and other reviewers co-assessed five; inter-rater correlation 0.62. Only three papers justified sample size.
- attrition
- Study-specific attrition and analysis populations were not reconciled in this assessment.
- confounding
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- adverse Findings
- Systematic adverse-event ascertainment is not established in inspected sections.
- transfer Limits
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- 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
- Fathers with pregnant partners or dependent children, with both primary-prevention and known-IPV samples
- exposure Evidence
- Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention. Some participants were prevention populations, so established personal victimization is not assumed.
- rationale
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- transfer Limit
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
Topics and recorded topic scores
- key
- language:domestic-family-violence
- title
- Domestic & Family Violence
- collection
- language
- trust Score
- 2
Citation snapshot and identifiers
- id
- dv-reviews-cont-39302822
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- citation Snapshot
- count
- Not recorded
- source
- Not recorded
- retrieved At
- Not recorded
- status
- not-assessed
- citations By Collection
- language
- Not recorded
Complete approved library record
- publication Approval
- status
- approved-for-publication
- approved By
- Ben Korbel
- approved At
- 2026-11-01
- assessment
- AI assessed; human approved for publication
- scope
- Qualified research-library summaries. No professional clinical peer review or treatment recommendation is claimed.
- source Revision
- audit-r2-9e7c9422923e
- source Content Hash
- 9e7c9422923e17f38bbb741b0d15bd7726e6733a181b9556f97bed5f1a15687e
- source Access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- 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-39302822
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- fresh Metadata
- Europe PMC core
- metadata Retrieved
- true
- metadata SHA256
- 8778df81baf595b187eddf39843408e04d38acc4feed9daead88bd5f58b55296
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- applied Proposals
- None recorded
- method
- AI editorial assessment of all 130 publication records: compare identity, headline finding, design, relevance and limitations with indexed abstracts or available primary material; adjudicate retained source-supported methods amendments. This is a source-limited publication audit, not an independent full-text systematic review or a clinical guideline.
- limitations
Abstract-only records do not establish allocation concealment, complete harms reporting or full risk of bias. · No formal independent RoB 2, GRADE appraisal or numerical reconstruction of every effect was performed. · Source-access labels describe retained appraisal evidence; fuller prior appraisals were checked through their source ledgers and selected material, not independently repeated in full. · Publication counts are not independent trial or participant counts; cohort links and overlapping review evidence remain provisional. · A randomized design cross does not indicate benefit, low risk of bias or human approval. No double-blind trial is verified in this release. · No professional clinical peer review is claimed. Recommended content is limited to accurately qualified research summaries.
- study Family Id
- review:39302822
- family Linkage Uncertain
- false
- approaches
- None recorded
- id
- dv-reviews-cont-39302822
- aliases
- None recorded
- title
- Effectiveness of Father-Focused Interventions to Prevent or Reduce Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy and Early Parenthood: A Systematic Review.
- journal
- Trauma, violence & abuse
- neurotransmitters
- None recorded
- year
- 2025
- authors
- Wynter K; Francis LM; Borgkvist A; Dixson B; D'Souza L; Duursma E; May C; Sher L; George JS
- design
- Systematic review
- kind
- Review
- identity Conflict
- Not recorded
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- urls
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241277270 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39302822/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- collections
language
- categories
Clinical & self-report · Methods & context
- targets
- None recorded
- priority
- 1
- quotes
- None recorded
- summary
- Only three of twelve publications with comparison groups reported more robust adjusted evidence of reduced IPV; all three were in lower- or middle-income settings. Other controlled findings were null, limited to particular outcomes, or no longer evident at later follow-up.
- limitation
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- citation Count
- Not recorded
- citation Snapshot
- count
- Not recorded
- source
- Not recorded
- retrieved At
- Not recorded
- status
- not-assessed
- study Design Assessment
- category
- review
- is Randomized Controlled Trial
- false
- basis
- Evidence synthesis 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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
- citations By Collection
- language
- Not recorded
- topics
- key
- language:domestic-family-violence
- title
- Domestic & Family Violence
- collection
- language
- trust Score
- 2
- journal Key
- traumaviolenceandabuse
- journal Label
- Trauma, violence & abuse
- chapter Entries
- id
- language-dv-dv-reviews-cont-39302822
- aliases
- None recorded
- title
- Effectiveness of Father-Focused Interventions to Prevent or Reduce Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy and Early Parenthood: A Systematic Review.
- authors
- Wynter K; Francis LM; Borgkvist A; Dixson B; D'Souza L; Duursma E; May C; Sher L; George JS
- year
- 2025
- journal
- Trauma, violence & abuse
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- urls
https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380241277270 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39302822/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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-39302822
- collections
language
- groups
adults
- reported Ages
- Reported mean paternal ages 23–35.9 years; individual age range not established.
- youth Scope
- Not recorded
- youth Source Note
- Children are part of the family context; IPV outcomes concern adult partners.
- source URL
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/
- 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
- category Id
- domestic-violence
- relation
- direct
- kind
- Review
- design
- Systematic review
- origin
- approved-dv-20261101
- priority
- 1
- quotes
- None recorded
- finding
- Only three of twelve publications with comparison groups reported more robust adjusted evidence of reduced IPV; all three were in lower- or middle-income settings. Other controlled findings were null, limited to particular outcomes, or no longer evident at later follow-up.
- summary
- Only three of twelve publications with comparison groups reported more robust adjusted evidence of reduced IPV; all three were in lower- or middle-income settings. Other controlled findings were null, limited to particular outcomes, or no longer evident at later follow-up.
- limitation
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- evidence
- evidence Type
- Systematic review
- intervention
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms. Varied; review median follow-up 7 months and maximum up to 9 years.
- comparator
- Other interventions, untreated/usual-care comparisons or pre-intervention scores.
- sample
- 15 publications reporting at least 10,816 participants. Twelve reported intervention and comparison groups; three reported single-group repeated measures. Publication totals are not independently verified unique cohorts.
- measurement
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization; Persistence of benefit
- timing
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months; Study-specific
- trial Id
- PROSPERO CRD42021228822
- relationship Note
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV. Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- measured Genes
- None recorded
- pathways
- None recorded
- source Access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- outcomes
- name
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization
- follow Up
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months
- result
- Three adjusted controlled analyses favored intervention; remaining evidence mixed
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled estimate. Primary prevention and treatment of known IPV are distinct.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- name
- Persistence of benefit
- follow Up
- Study-specific
- result
- Some short-term psychological-IPV differences were absent at later follow-up
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled durability estimate.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- quality
- risk Of Bias
- QuADS scores ranged 13–27 of 39 (median 22). One reviewer assessed all papers and other reviewers co-assessed five; inter-rater correlation 0.62. Only three papers justified sample size.
- attrition
- Study-specific attrition and analysis populations were not reconciled in this assessment.
- confounding
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- adverse Findings
- Systematic adverse-event ascertainment is not established in inspected sections.
- transfer Limits
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- 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
- Fathers with pregnant partners or dependent children, with both primary-prevention and known-IPV samples
- exposure Evidence
- Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention. Some participants were prevention populations, so established personal victimization is not assumed.
- rationale
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- transfer Limit
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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-r2-9e7c9422923e
- source Content Hash
- 9e7c9422923e17f38bbb741b0d15bd7726e6733a181b9556f97bed5f1a15687e
- source Access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- study Family Id
- review:39302822
- family Linkage Uncertain
- false
- approaches
- None recorded
- record Id
- dv-reviews-cont-39302822
- 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-39302822
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- fresh Metadata
- Europe PMC core
- metadata Retrieved
- true
- metadata SHA256
- 8778df81baf595b187eddf39843408e04d38acc4feed9daead88bd5f58b55296
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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-39302822
- title
- Effectiveness of Father-Focused Interventions to Prevent or Reduce Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy and Early Parenthood: A Systematic Review.
- authors
Wynter K · Francis LM · Borgkvist A · Dixson B · D'Souza L · Duursma E · May C · Sher L · George JS
- year
- 2025
- journal
- Trauma, violence & abuse
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- trial Registration
PROSPERO CRD42021228822
- collection
- language
- intervention Family
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms.
- publication Type
- Systematic review
- study Family Id
- review:39302822
- 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
- Fathers with pregnant partners or dependent children, with both primary-prevention and known-IPV samples
- exposure Evidence
- Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention. Some participants were prevention populations, so established personal victimization is not assumed.
- rationale
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- transfer Limit
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- age
- groups
adults
- reported Range
- Reported mean paternal ages 23–35.9 years; individual age range not established.
- youth Scope
- Children are part of the family context; IPV outcomes concern adult partners.
- country
- United States (7), Rwanda (2), New Zealand (2), Iran (2), Uganda (1) and United Kingdom (1).
- setting
- Community health (11 publications) and specialized settings such as court referral (4).
- sample Size
- randomized
- Not recorded
- analyzed
- Not recorded
- description
- 15 publications reporting at least 10,816 participants. Twelve reported intervention and comparison groups; three reported single-group repeated measures. Publication totals are not independently verified unique cohorts.
- intervention
- description
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms.
- dose
- Varied; review median follow-up 7 months and maximum up to 9 years.
- provider
- Not established from the inspected source sections.
- comparator
- Other interventions, untreated/usual-care comparisons or pre-intervention scores.
- outcomes
- name
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization
- follow Up
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months
- result
- Three adjusted controlled analyses favored intervention; remaining evidence mixed
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled estimate. Primary prevention and treatment of known IPV are distinct.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- name
- Persistence of benefit
- follow Up
- Study-specific
- result
- Some short-term psychological-IPV differences were absent at later follow-up
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled durability estimate.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- finding
- Only three of twelve publications with comparison groups reported more robust adjusted evidence of reduced IPV; all three were in lower- or middle-income settings. Other controlled findings were null, limited to particular outcomes, or no longer evident at later follow-up.
- limitation
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- design
- type
- 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
- QuADS scores ranged 13–27 of 39 (median 22). One reviewer assessed all papers and other reviewers co-assessed five; inter-rater correlation 0.62. Only three papers justified sample size.
- attrition
- Study-specific attrition and analysis populations were not reconciled in this assessment.
- confounding
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- adverse Findings
- Systematic adverse-event ascertainment is not established in inspected sections.
- transfer Limits
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- jadad
- not applicable
- access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- sources
- url
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/
- type
- Open-access article archived in PMC; XML retrieved through Europe PMC
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+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.
- url
- https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- type
- Publisher-deposited Crossref bibliographic metadata
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:12:24.786307+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
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- 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
- 4ac22a356d82f5a28d0d1b4fa5dad16c2495f531745d2d27b333aa3f0643fdb5
- crossref SHA256
- f303b0dfac32710390bb1be61121429127e92f50cd0115fefa7b66c843a61680
- 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-39302822
- doi
- 10.1177/15248380241277270
- pmid
- 39302822
- fresh Metadata
- Europe PMC core
- metadata Retrieved
- true
- metadata SHA256
- 8778df81baf595b187eddf39843408e04d38acc4feed9daead88bd5f58b55296
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- 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
- Fathers with pregnant partners or dependent children, with both primary-prevention and known-IPV samples
- exposure Evidence
- Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention. Some participants were prevention populations, so established personal victimization is not assumed.
- rationale
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- transfer Limit
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- intervention
- description
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms.
- dose
- Varied; review median follow-up 7 months and maximum up to 9 years.
- provider
- Not established from the inspected source sections.
- comparator
- Other interventions, untreated/usual-care comparisons or pre-intervention scores.
- outcomes
- name
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization
- follow Up
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months
- result
- Three adjusted controlled analyses favored intervention; remaining evidence mixed
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled estimate. Primary prevention and treatment of known IPV are distinct.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- name
- Persistence of benefit
- follow Up
- Study-specific
- result
- Some short-term psychological-IPV differences were absent at later follow-up
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled durability estimate.
- 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/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- citation Snapshot
- count
- Not recorded
- source
- Not recorded
- retrieved At
- Not recorded
- status
- not-assessed
- provenance
- Discovered by AI
- content Hash
- 9e7c9422923e17f38bbb741b0d15bd7726e6733a181b9556f97bed5f1a15687e
- revision
- audit-r2-9e7c9422923e
- archive Entries
- None recorded
- collection
- language
- chapter Number
- 5
- topic Id
- domestic-family-violence
- topic Title
- Domestic & Family Violence
- trust Score
- 2
- evidence
- evidence Type
- Systematic review
- intervention
- Father-focused or parent-focused programmes addressing IPV, parenting, relationships or gender norms. Varied; review median follow-up 7 months and maximum up to 9 years.
- comparator
- Other interventions, untreated/usual-care comparisons or pre-intervention scores.
- sample
- 15 publications reporting at least 10,816 participants. Twelve reported intervention and comparison groups; three reported single-group repeated measures. Publication totals are not independently verified unique cohorts.
- measurement
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization; Persistence of benefit
- timing
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months; Study-specific
- trial Id
- PROSPERO CRD42021228822
- relationship Note
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV. Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- measured Genes
- None recorded
- pathways
- None recorded
- source Access
- level
- selected-methods
- source URLs
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558938/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC11558938/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1177%2F15248380241277270
- retrieved At
- 2026-10-30T08:08:14.301666+00:00
- sections Inspected
Methods: registration, six-database search, inclusion, QuADS, extraction and synthesis · Results: quality, populations and controlled versus uncontrolled findings · Limitations
- outcomes
- name
- Adult IPV perpetration/victimization
- follow Up
- Immediate to 9 years; median 7 months
- result
- Three adjusted controlled analyses favored intervention; remaining evidence mixed
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled estimate. Primary prevention and treatment of known IPV are distinct.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- name
- Persistence of benefit
- follow Up
- Study-specific
- result
- Some short-term psychological-IPV differences were absent at later follow-up
- effect Estimate
- Not recorded
- uncertainty
- No pooled durability estimate.
- primary Status
- Review outcome; no participant-randomized trial conducted by this publication.
- quality
- risk Of Bias
- QuADS scores ranged 13–27 of 39 (median 22). One reviewer assessed all papers and other reviewers co-assessed five; inter-rater correlation 0.62. Only three papers justified sample size.
- attrition
- Study-specific attrition and analysis populations were not reconciled in this assessment.
- confounding
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- adverse Findings
- Systematic adverse-event ascertainment is not established in inspected sections.
- transfer Limits
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- 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
- Fathers with pregnant partners or dependent children, with both primary-prevention and known-IPV samples
- exposure Evidence
- Eligibility and study population descriptions explicitly concern IPV perpetrators, IPV-exposed survivors/children, or IPV prevention. Some participants were prevention populations, so established personal victimization is not assumed.
- rationale
- Clarifies the limited controlled evidence for father-focused prevention and distinguishes primary prevention from treatment in families with established IPV.
- transfer Limit
- Poor-to-moderate reporting/method quality; English peer-reviewed literature only, search completed May 2021 despite later publication, mixed prevention populations and incompatible outcomes prevented meta-analysis.
- jadad
- status
- not-applicable
- score
- Not recorded
- condition Evidence
- None recorded
- conditions
- None recorded
- topic Trust Scores
2
- full Text
- status
- not-indexed
- retrieval Available
- false