Search

INTRODUCTION: Sexual violence is commonplace and has serious adverse consequences for physical and mental health. Sexual Assault Referral Centres (SARCs) are viewed as a best practice response. Little is known about their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Long-term data on the health and well-being of those who have experienced rape and sexual assault are also lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods protocol for a 1-year cohort study aiming to examine the health and well-being in survivors of sexual violence after attending a SARC in England. Quantitative measures are being taken at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Post-traumatic stress (PTS) is the primary outcome (target N=270 at 12-month follow-up). Secondary measures include anxiety, depression, substance use and sexual health and well-being. Using mixed-effects regression, our main analysis will examine whether variation in SARC service delivery and subsequent mental healthcare is associated with improvement in trauma symptoms after 12 months. An economic analysis will compare costs and outcomes associated with different organisational aspects of SARC service delivery and levels of satisfaction with care. A nested qualitative study will employ narrative analysis of transcribed interviews with 30 cohort participants and 20 survivors who have not experienced SARC services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The research is supported by an independent study steering committee, data monitoring and ethics committee and patient and public involvement (PPI) group. A central guiding principle of the research is that being involved should feel diametrically opposed to being a victim of sexual violence, and be experienced as empowering and supportive. Our PPI representatives are instrumental in this, and our wider stakeholders encourage us to consider the health and well-being of all involved. We will disseminate widely through peer-reviewed articles and non-academic channels to maximise the impact of findings on com

BACKGROUND: Compared to men in the general population, men in substance use treatment are more likely to perpetrate intimate partner abuse (IPA). The ADVANCE group intervention for men in substance use treatment is tailored to address substance use and IPA in an integrated way. In a feasibility trial pre-COVID, men who received the ADVANCE intervention via face-to-face group delivery showed reductions in IPA perpetration. Due to COVID-19, ADVANCE was adapted for remote digital delivery. METHODS/DESIGN: This mixed-methods non-randomised feasibility study, with a nested process evaluation, will explore the feasibility and acceptability of delivering the ADVANCE digital intervention to men in substance use treatment who have perpetrated IPA towards a female partner in the past year. Sixty men will be recruited from seven substance use treatment services in Great Britain. The ADVANCE digital intervention comprises a preparatory one-to-one session with a facilitator to set goals, develop a personal safety plan, and increase motivation and a preparatory online group to prepare men for taking part in the intervention. The core intervention comprises six fortnightly online group sessions and 12 weekly self-directed website sessions to recap and practise skills learned in the online group sessions. Each website session is followed by a one-to-one video/phone coaching session with a facilitator. Men will also receive their usual substance use treatment. Men's female (ex) partners will be invited to provide outcome data and offered support from integrated safety services (ISS). Outcome measures for men and women will be sought post intervention (approximately 4 months post male baseline interview). Feasibility parameters to be estimated include eligibility, suitability, consent, recruitment, attendance, retention and follow-up rates. In-depth interviews or focus groups will explore the intervention's acceptability to participants, facilitators and ISS workers. A secondary focu

BACKGROUND: Substance use is a risk factor for intimate partner abuse (IPA) perpetration. Delivering perpetrator interventions concurrently with substance use treatment shows promise. METHODS: The feasibility of conducting an efficacy and cost-effectiveness trial of the ADVANCE 16-week intervention to reduce IPA by men in substance use treatment was explored. A multicentre, parallel group individually randomised controlled feasibility trial and formative evaluation was conducted. Over three temporal cycles, 104 men who had perpetrated IPA towards a female (ex) partner in the past year were randomly allocated to receive the ADVANCE intervention + substance use treatment as usual (TAU) (n = 54) or TAU only (n = 50) and assessed 16-weeks post-randomisation. Participants' (ex) partners were offered support and 27 provided outcome data. Thirty-one staff and 12 men who attended the intervention participated in focus groups or interviews that were analysed using the framework approach. Pre-specified criteria assessed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial: 1) ≥ 60% of eligible male participants recruited; 2) intervention acceptable to staff and male participants; 3) ≥ 70% of participants followed-up and 4) levels of substance use and 5) IPA perpetrated by men in the intervention arm did not increase from average baseline level at 16-weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: 70.7% (104/147) of eligible men were recruited. The formative evaluation confirmed the intervention's acceptability. Therapeutic alliance and session satisfaction were rated highly. The overall median rate of intervention session attendance (of 14 compulsory sessions) was 28.6% (range 14.3-64.3% by the third cycle). 49.0% (51/104) of men and 63.0% (17/27) of their (ex) partners were followed-up 16-weeks post-randomisation. This increased to 100% of men and women by cycle three. At follow-up, neither substance use nor IPA perpetration had worsened for men in the intervention arm. CONCLUSIONS: It w

INTRODUCTION: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is prevalent, harmful and more dangerous among diaspora communities because of the difficulty accessing DVA services, language and migration issues. Consequently, migrant/refugee women are common among primary care populations, but evidence for culturally competent DVA primary care practice is negligible. This pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial aims to increase DVA identification and referral (primary outcomes) threefold and safety planning (secondary outcome) among diverse women attending intervention vs comparison primary care clinics. Additionally, the study plans to improve recording of DVA, ethnicity, and conduct process and economic evaluations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Recruitment of ≤28 primary care clinics in Melbourne, Australia with high migrant/refugee communities. Eligible clinics need ≥1 South Asian general practitioner (GP) and one of two common software programmes to enable aggregated routine data extraction by GrHanite. Intervention staff undertake three DVA training sessions from a GP educator and bilingual DVA advocate/educator. Following training, clinic staff and DVA affected women 18+ will be supported for 12 months by the advocate/educator. Comparison clinics are trained in ethnicity and DVA data entry and offer routine DVA care. Data extraction of DV identification, safety planning and referral from routine GP data in both arms. Adjusted regression analysis by intention-to-treat by staff blinded to arm. Economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility. Process evaluation interviews and analysis with primary care staff and women will be framed by Normalisation Process Theory to maximise understanding of sustainability. Harmony will be the first primary care trial to test a culturally competent model for the care of diverse women experiencing DVA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval from La Trobe University Human Ethics Committee (HEC18413) and dissemination by

Objective: To identify and synthesise the experiences and expectations of women victim/survivors of intimate partner abuse (IPA) following disclosure to a healthcare provider (HCP). Methods: The databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, SocINDEX, ASSIA and the Cochrane Library were searched in February 2020. Included studies needed to focus on women’s experiences with and expectations of HCPs after disclosure of IPA. We considered primary studies using qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis published since 2004. Studies conducted in any country, in any type of healthcare setting, were included. The quality of individual studies was assessed using an adaptation of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative studies. The confidence in the overall evidence base was determined using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research methods. Thematic synthesis was used for analysis. Results: Thirty-one papers describing 30 studies were included in the final review. These were conducted in a range of health settings, predominantly in the USA and other high-income countries. All studies were in English. Four main themes were developed through the analysis, describing women’s experiences and expectations of HCPs: (1) connection through kindness and care; (2) see the evil, hear the evil, speak the evil; (3) do more than just listen; and (4) plant the right seed. If these key expectations were absent from care, it resulted in a range of negative emotional impacts for women. Conclusions: Our findings strongly align with the principles of woman-centred care, indicating that women value emotional connection

BACKGROUND: Strong evidence exists that substance use is a contributory risk factor for intimate partner abuse (IPA) perpetration. Men in substance use treatment are more likely to perpetrate IPA than men from the general population. Despite this, referral pathways are lacking for this group. This trial will assess the feasibility of conducting an evaluation trial of a tailored integrated intervention to address substance use and IPA perpetration to men in substance use treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: ADVANCE is a multicentre, parallel-group individually randomised controlled feasibility trial, with a nested formative evaluation, comparing an integrated intervention to reduce IPA + substance use treatment as usual (TAU) to TAU only. One hundred and eight men who have perpetrated IPA in the past 12 months from community substance use treatment in London, the West Midlands, and the South West will be recruited. ADVANCE is a manualised intervention comprising 2-4 individual sessions (2 compulsory) with a keyworker to set goals, develop a personal safety plan and increase motivation and readiness, followed by a 12-session weekly group intervention delivered in substance use services. Men will be randomly allocated (ratio 1:1) to receive the ADVANCE intervention + TAU or TAU only. Men's female (ex) partners will be invited to provide outcome data and offered support from integrated safety services (ISS). Regular case management meetings between substance use and ISS will manage risk. Outcome measures will be obtained at the end of the intervention (approximately 4 months post-randomisation) for all male and female participants. The main objective of this feasibility trial is to estimate parameters required for planning a definitive trial including rates of consent, recruitment, and follow-up by site and group allocation. Nested formative evaluation including focus groups and in-depth interviews will explore the intervention's acceptability to participants, group facilitators

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is common in patients attending health-care services and is associated with a range of health problems. The majority of IPV perpetrators are men, and a substantial minority of men are victims, yet health-care professionals have little evidence or guidance on how to respond to male patients who perpetrate or experience violence in their intimate relationships. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of interventions for male perpetrators or victims of IPV in health settings. Online databases, reference lists, Google Scholar, and gray literature were searched, and inclusion/exclusion criteria were applied. Narrative synthesis methods were used due to the heterogeneity of study types and outcome measures. RESULTS: Fourteen studies describing 10 interventions met our inclusion criteria: nine randomized controlled trials, four cohort studies, and one case-control study. Interventions were predominantly therapeutic in nature and many were conducted in alcohol treatment settings. CONCLUSION: Overall, the evidence for effectiveness of interventions in health-care settings was weak, although IPV interventions conducted concurrently with alcohol treatment show some promise. More work is urgently needed in health-care services to determine what interventions might be effective, and in what settings, to improve the response to male perpetrators or victims of IPV.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women is prevalent and strongly associated with mental health problems. Women experiencing IPV attend health services frequently for mental health problems. The World Health Organization recommends that women who have experienced IPV and have a mental health diagnosis should receive evidence-based mental health treatments. However, it is not known if psychological therapies work for women in the context of IPV and whether they cause harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychological therapies for women who experience IPV on the primary outcomes of depression, self-efficacy and an indicator of harm (dropouts) at six- to 12-months' follow-up, and on secondary outcomes of other mental health symptoms, anxiety, quality of life, re-exposure to IPV, safety planning and behaviours, use of healthcare and IPV services, and social support. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and three other databases, to the end of October 2019. We also searched international trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials and handsearched selected journals, reference lists of included trials and grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cross-over trials of psychological therapies with women aged 16 years and older who self-reported recent or lifetime experience of IPV. We included trials if women also experienced co-existing mental health diagnoses or substance abuse issues, or both. Psychological therapies included a wide range of interventions that targeted cognition, motivation and behaviour compared with usual care, no treatment, delayed or minimal interventions. We classified psychological therapies according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorders's psychological therapies list. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extrac

Health practitioners play an important role in identifying and responding to domestic violence and abuse (DVA). Despite a large amount of evidence about barriers and facilitators influencing health practitioners' care of survivors of DVA, evidence about their readiness to address DVA has not been synthesised. This article reports a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies exploring the research question: What do health practitioners perceive enhances their readiness to address domestic violence and abuse? Multiple data bases were searched in June 2018. Inclusion criteria included: qualitative design; population of health practitioners in clinical settings; and a focus on intimate partner violence. Two reviewers independently screened articles and findings from included papers were synthesised according to the method of thematic synthesis. Forty-seven articles were included in the final sample, spanning 41 individual studies, four systematic reviews and two theses between the years of 1992 and 2018; mostly from high income countries. Five themes were identified as enhancing readiness of health practitioners to address DVA: Having a commitment; Adopting an advocacy approach; Trusting the relationship; Collaborating with a team; and Being supported by the health system. We then propose a health practitioners' readiness framework called the CATCH Model (Commitment, Advocacy, Trust, Collaboration, Health system support). Applying this model to health practitioners' different readiness for change (using Stage of Change framework) allows us to tailor facilitating strategies in the health setting to enable greater readiness to deal with intimate partner abuse.

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. .

BACKGROUND: Women's experience of domestic violence and abuse (DVA) is associated with mental illness which may not be addressed by domestic violence advocacy. The study aimed to compare the experiences of women receiving a psychological intervention with women receiving usual advocacy in a randomized controlled trial (PATH: Psychological Advocacy Towards Healing), to illuminate the trial results by exploring women's experiences of benefits and difficulties. METHODS: A qualitative study nested within the PATH trial, based in two DVA agencies in the UK. A purposive sample of thirty-one intervention and usual care participants were interviewed up to three interviews over a year. Thematic analysis was carried out, incorporating concepts from the Trans-Theoretical Model of change. FINDINGS: The PATH trial reports a clinically relevant improvement in mental health outcomes for women receiving the intervention compared to usual advocacy. The qualitative study reveals which elements of the intervention were beneficial or problematic, which outcomes were most meaningful and relevant to participants and highlights reasons for variations in adherence. Women valued the educational, psychological and emotional elements of the intervention, they felt safe to explore repressed emotions for the first time and experienced a reduction in self-blame, improved sense of identity and greater self-esteem. They also incorporated new skills and self-help techniques to enable sustainable change. Women receiving usual advocacy reported un-met needs for psychological and emotional support. Adherence was affected by women's 'psychological 'readiness' to engage, the competing demands of practical issues such as housing insecurity, legal proceedings or the availability of child care, and breaks in the continuity of professional care. CONCLUSIONS: Continuity and regularity of sessions with a trained specialist worker was key to women's recovery. Individual assessment of 'readiness' would optimise

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the implementation of the Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) programme using up-to-date real-world information on costs and effectiveness from routine clinical practice. A Markov model was constructed to estimate mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of IRIS versus usual care per woman registered at a general practice from a societal and health service perspective with a 10-year time horizon. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cost-utility analysis in UK general practices, including data from six sites which have been running IRIS for at least 2 years across England. PARTICIPANTS: Based on the Markov model, which uses health states to represent possible outcomes of the intervention, we stipulated a hypothetical cohort of 10 000 women aged 16 years or older. INTERVENTIONS: The IRIS trial was a randomised controlled trial that tested the effectiveness of a primary care training and support intervention to improve the response to women experiencing domestic violence and abuse, and found it to be cost-effective. As a result, the IRIS programme has been implemented across the UK, generating data on costs and effectiveness outside a trial context. RESULTS: The IRIS programme saved £14 per woman aged 16 years or older registered in general practice (95% uncertainty interval -£151 to £37) and produced QALY gains of 0.001 per woman (95% uncertainty interval -0.005 to 0.006). The incremental net monetary benefit was positive both from a societal and National Health Service perspective (£42 and £22, respectively) and the IRIS programme was cost-effective in 61% of simulations using real-life data when the cost-effectiveness threshold was £20 000 per QALY gained as advised by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. CONCLUSION: The IRIS programme is likely to be cost-effective and cost-saving from a societal perspective in the UK and cost-effective from a health service perspective, although there is co