Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for Men Who Physically Abuse their Female Partner
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".