对施虐者的干预有效吗?元分析综述

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
R. Arce, Esther Arias, M. Novo, Francisca Fariña
{"title":"对施虐者的干预有效吗?元分析综述","authors":"R. Arce, Esther Arias, M. Novo, Francisca Fariña","doi":"10.5093/pi2020a11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The inconsistency in the results both internally and between of previous meta-analyses on batterer intervention program efficacy, and the publication of new batterer interventions underscored the need for an up-to-date meta-analyticalreview. A total of 25 primary studies were found from literature search, obtaining 62 effect sizes, and a total sample of 20,860 intervened batterers. The results of a global meta-analysis showed a positive, significant, and of a mediummagnitude effect size for batterer interventions, but not generalizable. Nevertheless, the results exhibited a significantly higher rate of recidivism measured in couple reports (CRs) than in official records (ORs). As a consequence, intervention efficacy measuring in CRs was null, whilst in ORs was positive and significant. As for the intervention model, positive andsignificant effects were observed under the Duluth Model and cognitive-behavioural treatment programs (CBTPs), but a higher effect size was obtained with CBTPs in comparison to the Duluth Model (under this model, interventions may have negative effects, i.e., an increase in recidivism rate). In relation to intervention length, short interventions failed to reduce recidivism in ORs and may have negative effects, while long interventions were effective in reducing recidivism rate in ORs without negative effects. Efficacy evaluations in short follow-ups were invalid as artificially boosted recidivismreduction rate. Limitations of ORs and short follow-ups as measures of the intervention efficacy and implications of results for batterer intervention are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51641,"journal":{"name":"Psychosocial Intervention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Interventions with Batterers Effective? A Meta-analytical Review\",\"authors\":\"R. Arce, Esther Arias, M. Novo, Francisca Fariña\",\"doi\":\"10.5093/pi2020a11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The inconsistency in the results both internally and between of previous meta-analyses on batterer intervention program efficacy, and the publication of new batterer interventions underscored the need for an up-to-date meta-analyticalreview. A total of 25 primary studies were found from literature search, obtaining 62 effect sizes, and a total sample of 20,860 intervened batterers. The results of a global meta-analysis showed a positive, significant, and of a mediummagnitude effect size for batterer interventions, but not generalizable. Nevertheless, the results exhibited a significantly higher rate of recidivism measured in couple reports (CRs) than in official records (ORs). As a consequence, intervention efficacy measuring in CRs was null, whilst in ORs was positive and significant. As for the intervention model, positive andsignificant effects were observed under the Duluth Model and cognitive-behavioural treatment programs (CBTPs), but a higher effect size was obtained with CBTPs in comparison to the Duluth Model (under this model, interventions may have negative effects, i.e., an increase in recidivism rate). In relation to intervention length, short interventions failed to reduce recidivism in ORs and may have negative effects, while long interventions were effective in reducing recidivism rate in ORs without negative effects. Efficacy evaluations in short follow-ups were invalid as artificially boosted recidivismreduction rate. Limitations of ORs and short follow-ups as measures of the intervention efficacy and implications of results for batterer intervention are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51641,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychosocial Intervention\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"44\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychosocial Intervention\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a11\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychosocial Intervention","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5093/pi2020a11","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44

摘要

先前关于殴打者干预计划疗效的荟萃分析与新的殴打者干预措施的发布之间的内部和结果不一致,强调了最新荟萃分析综述的必要性。从文献检索中总共发现了25项初步研究,获得了62个效应大小,总共有20860名干预击球手。一项全球荟萃分析的结果显示,打击者干预措施具有积极、显著和中等规模的影响,但不能推广。尽管如此,研究结果显示,夫妻报告(CR)中的累犯率明显高于官方记录(OR)。因此,CR中的干预效果测量是无效的,而OR中的干预疗效测量是积极和显著的。至于干预模型,在德卢斯模型和认知行为治疗计划(CBTP)下观察到了积极和显著的效果,但与德卢斯模型相比,CBTP的效果更大(在该模型下,干预可能会产生负面影响,即累犯率增加)。就干预时间而言,短期干预未能降低ORs的累犯率,可能会产生负面影响,而长期干预在降低ORs累犯率方面有效,没有负面影响。短期随访中的疗效评估是无效的,因为人为提高了累犯率。讨论了ORs和短期随访作为干预效果衡量标准的局限性以及结果对殴打者干预的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Are Interventions with Batterers Effective? A Meta-analytical Review
The inconsistency in the results both internally and between of previous meta-analyses on batterer intervention program efficacy, and the publication of new batterer interventions underscored the need for an up-to-date meta-analyticalreview. A total of 25 primary studies were found from literature search, obtaining 62 effect sizes, and a total sample of 20,860 intervened batterers. The results of a global meta-analysis showed a positive, significant, and of a mediummagnitude effect size for batterer interventions, but not generalizable. Nevertheless, the results exhibited a significantly higher rate of recidivism measured in couple reports (CRs) than in official records (ORs). As a consequence, intervention efficacy measuring in CRs was null, whilst in ORs was positive and significant. As for the intervention model, positive andsignificant effects were observed under the Duluth Model and cognitive-behavioural treatment programs (CBTPs), but a higher effect size was obtained with CBTPs in comparison to the Duluth Model (under this model, interventions may have negative effects, i.e., an increase in recidivism rate). In relation to intervention length, short interventions failed to reduce recidivism in ORs and may have negative effects, while long interventions were effective in reducing recidivism rate in ORs without negative effects. Efficacy evaluations in short follow-ups were invalid as artificially boosted recidivismreduction rate. Limitations of ORs and short follow-ups as measures of the intervention efficacy and implications of results for batterer intervention are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychosocial Intervention
Psychosocial Intervention PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
10
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychosocial Intervention is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes papers in all areas relevant to psychosocial intervention at the individual, family, social networks, organization, community, and population levels. The Journal emphasizes an evidence-based perspective and welcomes papers reporting original basic and applied research, program evaluation, and intervention results. The journal will also feature integrative reviews, and specialized papers on theoretical advances and methodological issues. Psychosocial Intervention is committed to advance knowledge, and to provide scientific evidence informing psychosocial interventions tackling social and community problems, and promoting social welfare and quality of life. Psychosocial Intervention welcomes contributions from all areas of psychology and allied disciplines, such as sociology, social work, social epidemiology, and public health. Psychosocial Intervention aims to be international in scope, and will publish papers both in Spanish and English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信