Emotional skills and health assessment in interventions for intimate partner violence perpetrators: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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 of randomized trials

intervention

Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy. Single-session to more than 16-session programmes; duration and emotional-content intensity varied.

comparator

Mostly heterogeneous active interventions; some no-treatment, usual-care or placebo comparisons.

sample

15 primary trial reports with 2,390 reported participants; 1,369 intervention and 1,021 comparator. Pooled trial participants are not new independent studies.

measurement

Official IPV recidivism; Any selected recidivism or associated outcome; Adherence/dropout

timing

Study-specific, extending to 3 years; Study-specific; During treatment

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim. No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

sections Inspected

Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Official IPV recidivism

   follow Up

   Study-specific, extending to 3 years

   result

   Only one of five trials favored intervention

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Narrative synthesis; no pooled recidivism effect.

   primary Status

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

2. name

   Any selected recidivism or associated outcome

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Eight of 15 trials reported a favorable difference

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Vote count across different outcomes and designs; not a response rate or treatment-effect magnitude.

   primary Status

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

3. name

   Adherence/dropout

   follow Up

   During treatment

   result

   No significant overall advantage established

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   No quantitative pooled estimate.

   primary Status

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

quality

risk Of Bias

Cochrane-domain assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. No included trial met all domains; ten had insufficient outcome-assessor masking information, and eleven had medium/high other-bias concerns.

attrition

Thirteen trials reported dropout or dose; three had low adherence under the review definition. No significant advantage in dropout or dose was established.

confounding

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

adverse Findings

Review did not provide a systematic pooled adverse-event analysis; absence of harm cannot be inferred.

transfer Limits

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

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

Adult men and women who perpetrate IPV in community, military and online intervention samples

exposure Evidence

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

rationale

Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

transfer Limit

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

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-r2-152b5d5f71a2

source Content Hash

152b5d5f71a21bf4d7a2e9a0eefcbe6fc4c584e2c19487cf22a690b3cc3f48a6

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

sections Inspected

Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap 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-40632759

doi

10.1371/journal.pone.0328034

pmid

40632759

fresh Metadata

Europe PMC core

metadata Retrieved

true

metadata SHA256

4c399d47e7e2f57a8140e9c1f897c4ba6676c66eb8e3e4ffd8ddb9d9f3375fc0

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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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/10.1371/journal.pone.0328034 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40632759/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

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-40632759

   aliases

   None recorded

   title

   Emotional skills and health assessment in interventions for intimate partner violence perpetrators: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

   authors

   Mora-Pelegrín M; Aranda M; Montes-Berges B

   year

   2025

   journal

   PloS one

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0328034

   pmid

   40632759

   urls

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328034 · https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40632759/ · https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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-40632759

   collections

   language

   groups

   adults

   reported Ages

   Reported study mean ages range from 27 to 60.5 years; individual age range not established.

   youth Scope

   Not recorded

   youth Source Note

   Not recorded

   source URL

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/

   basis Type

   source-limited-ai-editorial-assessment

   classification Note

   Original age terms: adults. Programme targets or possible eligibility are not counted as observed ages.

   community Matches

   1. category Id

      domestic-violence

      relation

      direct

   2. category Id

      defence

      relation

      direct

   kind

   Review

   design

   Systematic review of randomized trials

   origin

   approved-dv-20261101

   priority

   1

   quotes

   None recorded

   finding

   Eight of 15 trials favored an emotional-skills programme on at least one selected outcome, but only one of five trials using official IPV recidivism records favored the intervention. A count of positive trials does not establish a pooled effect.

   summary

   Eight of 15 trials favored an emotional-skills programme on at least one selected outcome, but only one of five trials using official IPV recidivism records favored the intervention. A count of positive trials does not establish a pooled effect.

   limitation

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   evidence

   evidence Type

   Systematic review of randomized trials

   intervention

   Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy. Single-session to more than 16-session programmes; duration and emotional-content intensity varied.

   comparator

   Mostly heterogeneous active interventions; some no-treatment, usual-care or placebo comparisons.

   sample

   15 primary trial reports with 2,390 reported participants; 1,369 intervention and 1,021 comparator. Pooled trial participants are not new independent studies.

   measurement

   Official IPV recidivism; Any selected recidivism or associated outcome; Adherence/dropout

   timing

   Study-specific, extending to 3 years; Study-specific; During treatment

   trial Id

   relationship Note

   Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim. No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   measured Genes

   None recorded

   pathways

   None recorded

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

   outcomes

   1. name

      Official IPV recidivism

      follow Up

      Study-specific, extending to 3 years

      result

      Only one of five trials favored intervention

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Narrative synthesis; no pooled recidivism effect.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Any selected recidivism or associated outcome

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Eight of 15 trials reported a favorable difference

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Vote count across different outcomes and designs; not a response rate or treatment-effect magnitude.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Adherence/dropout

      follow Up

      During treatment

      result

      No significant overall advantage established

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No quantitative pooled estimate.

      primary Status

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

   quality

   risk Of Bias

   Cochrane-domain assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. No included trial met all domains; ten had insufficient outcome-assessor masking information, and eleven had medium/high other-bias concerns.

   attrition

   Thirteen trials reported dropout or dose; three had low adherence under the review definition. No significant advantage in dropout or dose was established.

   confounding

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   adverse Findings

   Review did not provide a systematic pooled adverse-event analysis; absence of harm cannot be inferred.

   transfer Limits

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   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

   Adult men and women who perpetrate IPV in community, military and online intervention samples

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

   transfer Limit

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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-r2-152b5d5f71a2

   source Content Hash

   152b5d5f71a21bf4d7a2e9a0eefcbe6fc4c584e2c19487cf22a690b3cc3f48a6

   source Access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

   study Family Id

   review:40632759

   family Linkage Uncertain

   false

   approaches

   None recorded

   record Id

   dv-reviews-cont-40632759

   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-40632759

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0328034

   pmid

   40632759

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   4c399d47e7e2f57a8140e9c1f897c4ba6676c66eb8e3e4ffd8ddb9d9f3375fc0

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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-40632759

   title

   Emotional skills and health assessment in interventions for intimate partner violence perpetrators: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

   authors

   Mora-Pelegrín M · Aranda M · Montes-Berges B

   year

   2025

   journal

   PloS one

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0328034

   pmid

   40632759

   trial Registration

   None recorded

   collection

   language

   intervention Family

   Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy.

   publication Type

   Systematic review of randomized trials

   study Family Id

   review:40632759

   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

   Adult men and women who perpetrate IPV in community, military and online intervention samples

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

   transfer Limit

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   age

   groups

   adults

   reported Range

   Reported study mean ages range from 27 to 60.5 years; individual age range not established.

   youth Scope

   Not recorded

   country

   United States (9 trials), Spain (2), Netherlands, United Kingdom, Norway and Sweden (1 each).

   setting

   Mainly community programmes; one military trial and one online trial.

   sample Size

   randomized

   Not recorded

   analyzed

   Not recorded

   description

   15 primary trial reports with 2,390 reported participants; 1,369 intervention and 1,021 comparator. Pooled trial participants are not new independent studies.

   intervention

   description

   Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy.

   dose

   Single-session to more than 16-session programmes; duration and emotional-content intensity varied.

   provider

   Health professionals, psychologists, therapists and psychology students; relevant IPV experience reported in four trials.

   comparator

   Mostly heterogeneous active interventions; some no-treatment, usual-care or placebo comparisons.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Official IPV recidivism

      follow Up

      Study-specific, extending to 3 years

      result

      Only one of five trials favored intervention

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Narrative synthesis; no pooled recidivism effect.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Any selected recidivism or associated outcome

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Eight of 15 trials reported a favorable difference

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Vote count across different outcomes and designs; not a response rate or treatment-effect magnitude.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Adherence/dropout

      follow Up

      During treatment

      result

      No significant overall advantage established

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No quantitative pooled estimate.

      primary Status

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

   finding

   Eight of 15 trials favored an emotional-skills programme on at least one selected outcome, but only one of five trials using official IPV recidivism records favored the intervention. A count of positive trials does not establish a pooled effect.

   limitation

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   design

   type

   Systematic review of randomized trials

   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

   Cochrane-domain assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. No included trial met all domains; ten had insufficient outcome-assessor masking information, and eleven had medium/high other-bias concerns.

   attrition

   Thirteen trials reported dropout or dose; three had low adherence under the review definition. No significant advantage in dropout or dose was established.

   confounding

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   adverse Findings

   Review did not provide a systematic pooled adverse-event analysis; absence of harm cannot be inferred.

   transfer Limits

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   jadad

   not applicable

   access

   level

   selected-methods

   source URLs

   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

   sources

   1. url

      https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/

      type

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

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+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/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

      type

      Publisher-deposited Crossref bibliographic metadata

      retrieved At

      2026-10-30T08:12:24.786050+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: research-article, Systematic Review, Journal Article.

   uncertainty

   This is not an exhaustive correction/retraction search.

   recommendation Rationale

   Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

   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

   1e0ddc7213803657341dacb5df5b53503b3c8c65c7a24a15d1b47b644cb146ce

   crossref SHA256

   d78bb6e6237f5df71db9d50b29c17202d4c7a303177ffcdd25f10832857a37f7

   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-40632759

   doi

   10.1371/journal.pone.0328034

   pmid

   40632759

   fresh Metadata

   Europe PMC core

   metadata Retrieved

   true

   metadata SHA256

   4c399d47e7e2f57a8140e9c1f897c4ba6676c66eb8e3e4ffd8ddb9d9f3375fc0

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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/PMC12240372/ · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   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

   Adult men and women who perpetrate IPV in community, military and online intervention samples

   exposure Evidence

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

   rationale

   Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

   transfer Limit

   No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

   intervention

   description

   Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy.

   dose

   Single-session to more than 16-session programmes; duration and emotional-content intensity varied.

   provider

   Health professionals, psychologists, therapists and psychology students; relevant IPV experience reported in four trials.

   comparator

   Mostly heterogeneous active interventions; some no-treatment, usual-care or placebo comparisons.

   outcomes

   1. name

      Official IPV recidivism

      follow Up

      Study-specific, extending to 3 years

      result

      Only one of five trials favored intervention

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Narrative synthesis; no pooled recidivism effect.

      primary Status

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

   2. name

      Any selected recidivism or associated outcome

      follow Up

      Study-specific

      result

      Eight of 15 trials reported a favorable difference

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      Vote count across different outcomes and designs; not a response rate or treatment-effect magnitude.

      primary Status

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

   3. name

      Adherence/dropout

      follow Up

      During treatment

      result

      No significant overall advantage established

      effect Estimate

      Not recorded

      uncertainty

      No quantitative pooled 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/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

   retrieved At

   2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

   sections Inspected

   Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

   citation Snapshot

   count

   Not recorded

   source

   Not recorded

   retrieved At

   Not recorded

   status

   not-assessed

   provenance

   Discovered by AI

   content Hash

   152b5d5f71a21bf4d7a2e9a0eefcbe6fc4c584e2c19487cf22a690b3cc3f48a6

   revision

   audit-r2-152b5d5f71a2

   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 of randomized trials

intervention

Perpetrator programmes incorporating emotional skills, usually within CBT; emotion regulation, anger management, communication and empathy. Single-session to more than 16-session programmes; duration and emotional-content intensity varied.

comparator

Mostly heterogeneous active interventions; some no-treatment, usual-care or placebo comparisons.

sample

15 primary trial reports with 2,390 reported participants; 1,369 intervention and 1,021 comparator. Pooled trial participants are not new independent studies.

measurement

Official IPV recidivism; Any selected recidivism or associated outcome; Adherence/dropout

timing

Study-specific, extending to 3 years; Study-specific; During treatment

trial Id

relationship Note

Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim. No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

measured Genes

None recorded

pathways

None recorded

source Access

level

selected-methods

source URLs

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12240372/ · https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC12240372/fullTextXML · https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0328034

retrieved At

2026-10-30T08:08:14.230781+00:00

sections Inspected

Methods: eligibility, search, extraction and risk-of-bias assessment · Results: study characteristics, quality assessment, qualitative analysis and trial findings · Discussion: official-record findings, comparator overlap and limitations

outcomes

1. name

   Official IPV recidivism

   follow Up

   Study-specific, extending to 3 years

   result

   Only one of five trials favored intervention

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Narrative synthesis; no pooled recidivism effect.

   primary Status

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

2. name

   Any selected recidivism or associated outcome

   follow Up

   Study-specific

   result

   Eight of 15 trials reported a favorable difference

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   Vote count across different outcomes and designs; not a response rate or treatment-effect magnitude.

   primary Status

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

3. name

   Adherence/dropout

   follow Up

   During treatment

   result

   No significant overall advantage established

   effect Estimate

   Not recorded

   uncertainty

   No quantitative pooled estimate.

   primary Status

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

quality

risk Of Bias

Cochrane-domain assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. No included trial met all domains; ten had insufficient outcome-assessor masking information, and eleven had medium/high other-bias concerns.

attrition

Thirteen trials reported dropout or dose; three had low adherence under the review definition. No significant advantage in dropout or dose was established.

confounding

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

adverse Findings

Review did not provide a systematic pooled adverse-event analysis; absence of harm cannot be inferred.

transfer Limits

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

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

Adult men and women who perpetrate IPV in community, military and online intervention samples

exposure Evidence

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

rationale

Adds a methods-supported map of emotional-skills interventions while retaining weak official-record evidence and preventing positive-outcome vote counting from becoming an efficacy claim.

transfer Limit

No review registration or published protocol. Heterogeneous interventions and active controls often shared emotional components; four pilot/feasibility trials and frequent self-report limit causal attribution to emotional skills alone.

status

not-applicable

score

Not recorded

2

status

not-indexed

retrieval Available

false