Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Men Who Physically Abuse their Female Partner
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Domestic violence is common and serious. Many convicted men are court-ordered to receive cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) in order to end their violence. Most men do not voluntarily seek such therapy but participate either after being pressured by their partners or after being legally required to do so. This Campbell Systematic Review sought all randomised controlled evaluations about the effects of CBT on physical violence worldwide, but found only six small trials with 2,343 participants met the inclusion criteria. The evidence from the included studies is insufficient to draw any conclusions. Abstract Background In national surveys between 10 % and 34 % of women have reported being physically assaulted by an intimate male partner. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or programmes with elements of CBT are frequently used treatments for physically abusive men. Participants either enrol voluntarily or are obliged to participate in CBT by means of a court order. CBT not only seeks to change behaviour using established behavioural strategies, but also targets the thinking patterns and beliefs that are thought to contribute to violence. Objectives To measure the effects of CBT and similar interventions on men's physical abuse of their female partners. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), C2-SPECTR, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Care Data/Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Bibliography of Nordic Criminology (all to late 2006), and SIGLE to 2003. Santé mentale au Québec was handsearched from 1976 to 2003 and reference lists of articles. We also contacted field experts and the authors of included studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (including cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised trials) of cognitive behavioural therapy with men who physically abuse their partners and reporting effects on continued violence. Data collection & analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. Main results Six trials, all from the USA, involving 2343 people, were included. A meta-analysis of four trials comparing CBT with a no-intervention control with 1771 participants, reported that the relative risk of violence was 0.86 (favouring the intervention group) with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of 0.54 to 1.38. This is a small effect size, and the confidence interval is so wide that there is no clear evidence for an effect. One study (Wisconsin Study) compared CBT with process-psychodynamic group treatment and found a relative risk of new violence of 1.07 (95% CI 0.68 to 1.68). Even though the process-psychodynamic treatment did marginally better than CBT, this result is also equivocal. Finally, one small study (N = 64) compared a combined treatment for substance abuse and domestic violence (SADV) with a Twelve-Step Facilitation (TSF) group. An analysis involving 58 participants investigated the effect on reduction in frequency of physical violence episodes. The effect size was 0.30 (favouring TSF) with 95% confidence interval from -0.22 to 0.81. Reviewers’ conclusions There are still too few randomised controlled effect evaluations to conclude about the effects of cognitive behaviour therapy on domestic violence.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,014 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».