减少使用药物的男性实施亲密伴侣暴力的干预措施:系统性回顾和疗效元分析》(A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy)。

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2019-11-11 DOI:10.1177/1524838019882357
Danielle Stephens-Lewis, Amy Johnson, Alyson Huntley, Elizabeth Gilchrist, Mary McMurran, Juliet Henderson, Gene Feder, Louise M Howard, Gail Gilchrist
{"title":"减少使用药物的男性实施亲密伴侣暴力的干预措施:系统性回顾和疗效元分析》(A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy)。","authors":"Danielle Stephens-Lewis, Amy Johnson, Alyson Huntley, Elizabeth Gilchrist, Mary McMurran, Juliet Henderson, Gene Feder, Louise M Howard, Gail Gilchrist","doi":"10.1177/1524838019882357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the high prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration by men who use substances, limited evidence exists about how best to reduce IPV among this group.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic narrative review with meta-analysis determined the effectiveness of interventions to reduce IPV by men who use substances. Inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials; adult heterosexual male IPV perpetrators where at least 60% of participants were alcohol and/or drug users; the intervention targeted IPV with or without targeting substance use (SU); outcomes included perpetrator and/or victim reports of IPV, SU, or both. Methodological quality was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine trials (<i>n</i> = 1,014 men) were identified. Interventions were grouped into (1) integrated IPV and SU interventions (<i>n</i> = 5), (2) IPV interventions with adjunct SU interventions (<i>n</i> = 2), and (3) stand-alone IPV interventions (<i>n</i> = 2). Cognitive behavioral and motivational interviewing therapies were the most common approaches. Data from individual trials showed a reduction in SU outcomes in the short term (≤3months; <i>n</i> = 2 trials) and IPV perpetration at different time points (<i>n</i> = 3 trials) for interventions compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Meta-analysis with integrated IPV and SU interventions showed no difference in SU (<i>n</i> = 3 trials) or IPV outcomes (<i>n</i> = 4 trials) versus SU TAU.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Little evidence exists for effective interventions for male IPV perpetrators who use substances. Outcomes in integrated interventions were not superior to TAU in meta-analysis. Future trials should consider the nature of the relationship between IPV and SU in intervention design, duration of intervention, and type and timing of outcome measures. .</p>","PeriodicalId":45106,"journal":{"name":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","volume":"30 1","pages":"1262-1278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649458/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interventions to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Men Who Use Substances: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy.\",\"authors\":\"Danielle Stephens-Lewis, Amy Johnson, Alyson Huntley, Elizabeth Gilchrist, Mary McMurran, Juliet Henderson, Gene Feder, Louise M Howard, Gail Gilchrist\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1524838019882357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Despite the high prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration by men who use substances, limited evidence exists about how best to reduce IPV among this group.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A systematic narrative review with meta-analysis determined the effectiveness of interventions to reduce IPV by men who use substances. Inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials; adult heterosexual male IPV perpetrators where at least 60% of participants were alcohol and/or drug users; the intervention targeted IPV with or without targeting substance use (SU); outcomes included perpetrator and/or victim reports of IPV, SU, or both. Methodological quality was assessed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nine trials (<i>n</i> = 1,014 men) were identified. Interventions were grouped into (1) integrated IPV and SU interventions (<i>n</i> = 5), (2) IPV interventions with adjunct SU interventions (<i>n</i> = 2), and (3) stand-alone IPV interventions (<i>n</i> = 2). Cognitive behavioral and motivational interviewing therapies were the most common approaches. Data from individual trials showed a reduction in SU outcomes in the short term (≤3months; <i>n</i> = 2 trials) and IPV perpetration at different time points (<i>n</i> = 3 trials) for interventions compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Meta-analysis with integrated IPV and SU interventions showed no difference in SU (<i>n</i> = 3 trials) or IPV outcomes (<i>n</i> = 4 trials) versus SU TAU.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Little evidence exists for effective interventions for male IPV perpetrators who use substances. Outcomes in integrated interventions were not superior to TAU in meta-analysis. Future trials should consider the nature of the relationship between IPV and SU in intervention design, duration of intervention, and type and timing of outcome measures. .</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45106,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"1262-1278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8649458/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019882357\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2019/11/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838019882357","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/11/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:尽管使用药物的男性实施亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的发生率很高,但关于如何在这一群体中最好地减少 IPV 的证据却很有限:方法:通过荟萃分析进行系统性叙事回顾,确定了减少吸毒男性实施 IPV 的干预措施的有效性。纳入标准包括随机和非随机对照试验;成年异性恋男性 IPV 施暴者,其中至少 60% 的参与者是酒精和/或毒品使用者;干预措施针对 IPV,或不针对药物使用(SU);结果包括施暴者和/或受害者报告的 IPV、SU 或两者。对方法学质量进行了评估:结果:共确定了九项试验(n = 1 014 名男性)。干预措施分为:(1)综合 IPV 和 SU 干预措施(5 项);(2)IPV 干预措施与辅助 SU 干预措施(2 项);(3)独立的 IPV 干预措施(2 项)。认知行为疗法和动机访谈疗法是最常见的方法。个别试验的数据显示,与常规治疗(TAU)相比,干预措施在短期内(≤3 个月;n = 2 项试验)降低了 SU 结果,在不同时间点(n = 3 项试验)降低了 IPV 施行率。综合 IPV 和 SU 干预的 Meta 分析表明,SU(n = 3 项试验)或 IPV 结果(n = 4 项试验)与 SU TAU 相比没有差异:对使用药物的男性 IPV 施暴者进行有效干预的证据很少。在荟萃分析中,综合干预的结果并不优于TAU。未来的试验应在干预设计、干预持续时间以及结果测量的类型和时间上考虑 IPV 和 SU 之间关系的性质。.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interventions to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration by Men Who Use Substances: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy.

Introduction: Despite the high prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration by men who use substances, limited evidence exists about how best to reduce IPV among this group.

Method: A systematic narrative review with meta-analysis determined the effectiveness of interventions to reduce IPV by men who use substances. Inclusion criteria were randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials; adult heterosexual male IPV perpetrators where at least 60% of participants were alcohol and/or drug users; the intervention targeted IPV with or without targeting substance use (SU); outcomes included perpetrator and/or victim reports of IPV, SU, or both. Methodological quality was assessed.

Results: Nine trials (n = 1,014 men) were identified. Interventions were grouped into (1) integrated IPV and SU interventions (n = 5), (2) IPV interventions with adjunct SU interventions (n = 2), and (3) stand-alone IPV interventions (n = 2). Cognitive behavioral and motivational interviewing therapies were the most common approaches. Data from individual trials showed a reduction in SU outcomes in the short term (≤3months; n = 2 trials) and IPV perpetration at different time points (n = 3 trials) for interventions compared with treatment as usual (TAU). Meta-analysis with integrated IPV and SU interventions showed no difference in SU (n = 3 trials) or IPV outcomes (n = 4 trials) versus SU TAU.

Conclusions: Little evidence exists for effective interventions for male IPV perpetrators who use substances. Outcomes in integrated interventions were not superior to TAU in meta-analysis. Future trials should consider the nature of the relationship between IPV and SU in intervention design, duration of intervention, and type and timing of outcome measures. .

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
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE
PROGRESS IN PALLIATIVE CARE PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
11.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Progress in Palliative Care is a peer reviewed, multidisciplinary journal with an international perspective. It provides a central point of reference for all members of the palliative care community: medical consultants, nurses, hospital support teams, home care teams, hospice directors and administrators, pain centre staff, social workers, chaplains, counsellors, information staff, paramedical staff and self-help groups. The emphasis of the journal is on the rapid exchange of information amongst those working in palliative care. Progress in Palliative Care embraces all aspects of the management of the problems of end-stage disease.
×
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