Psychotherapy and Counseling Providers’ Subjective Experiences Serving Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV): A Scoping Review of Qualitative Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) seek psychotherapy or counseling, providers often lack consistent training in serving this population, leading to variable-and at times harmful-experiences for survivor-clients. A review of existing research is necessary to better understand the perspectives of psychotherapy and counseling professionals working with this population. This scoping review examines qualitative studies focused on the experiences of providers working with adult IPV survivors in individual therapy. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping reviews, 21 studies were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria for this review (i.e., qualitative studies with samples of psychotherapy or counseling providers who serve adult IPV survivors). These studies reveal significant personal challenges for providers, alongside limited training, education, and supervision. Providers demonstrated varying conceptualizations of IPV, employed diverse interventions, and described the influence of cultural, identity-related, and structural factors on their work. Many providers felt that systemic and societal barriers impacted their ability to effectively serve survivors. Findings indicate the need for comprehensive training, supervision, and resources to support providers in their work with IPV survivors. Yet, as IPV is rooted in structural inequities, individual-level interventions, while important, are not sufficient to address this social problem.
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 | 0.026 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".