بررسی فراتحلیلی درمان خشونت خانگی

This meta-analytic review examines the findings of 22 studies evaluating treatment efficacy for domestically violent males. The outcome literature of controlled quasi-experimental and experimental studies was reviewed to test the relative impact of Duluth model, cognitive–behavioral therapy (CBT), and other types of treatment on subsequent recidivism of violence. Study design and type of treatment were tested as moderators. Treatment design tended to have a small influence on effect size. There were no differences in effect sizes in comparing Duluth model vs. CBT-type interventions. Overall, effects due to treatment were in the small range, meaning that the current interventions have a minimal impact on reducing recidivism beyond the effect of being arrested. Analogies to treatment for other populations are presented for comparison. Implications for policy decisions and future research are discussed.

As an estimated 840,000 women reported assaults at the hands of an intimate in 1996 (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1998), interventions designed to address this growing public health concern have focused on the perpetrators of domestic violence in hopes of deterring further assault. Prior to the 1980s, little attention was paid to domestic violence intervention (Fagan, 1989). Issues of family privacy vs. societal best interest were paramount (Zimring, 1989); domestic violence was sometimes thought best “left behind drawn curtains” (State v. Oliver, 1874, cited in Rosenfeld, 1992). Subsequent criminalization of domestic violence dictated whether the crime of domestic violence should entail rehabilitation or incarceration. Since then, spouse abusers have “traditionally fallen under the rehabilitative, rather than the punitive arm of the criminal justice system” (Rosenfeld, 1992, p. 207). In actuality, with the implementation of mandatory arrest policies and court-mandated counseling, batterers' interventions became a fusion between punishment and rehabilitation.