This meta-analysis updates the literature on the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs (BIPs) in decreasing recidivism of domestic violence (DV) by focusing on studies with nontreated comparison groups ( N = 17). Included studies were published between 1986 and 2016, and 14 of the 17 provided sufficient information for the meta-analysis. Analysis focused on three reported outcomes: DV recidivism reported by the criminal justice system, intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration assessed by the survivor, and general offense recidivism reported by the criminal justice system. Results of meta-analysis indicated that BIPs were effective in decreasing DV recidivism and general offense recidivism when reported by the criminal justice system, but not when assessed by the survivor. BIP participants were about 3 times less likely to have DV recidivism and about 2.5 times less likely to have general offense recidivism, compared to nontreated control/comparison groups. The pooled effect size varied, however, by research design. Specifically, results indicated a nonsignificant pooled effect size for randomized controlled trials but a significant pooled effect size for quasi-experimental design studies. Implications for future practice and research are discussed.

Importance: Anecdotal evidence such as increased calls to domestic violence (DV) hotlines across the globe suggest that there may be an increase of IPV prevalence in association with the COVID-19 outbreak; however, no study has investigated this phenomenon empirically. Objective: To evaluate the association between COVID-19 related conditions and recent use or experience of IPV (since the pandemic outbreak in the U.S). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed data collected online from a sample of noninstitutionalized adults (age 18+) in the U.S. (N=2,045). More than half of the sample self-identified as being in an intimate relationship at the time of the study. Main Outcomes and Measures: A four-item tool was used to assess IPV perpetration and victimization since the outbreak of COVID-19. The rapid tool inquired about two forms of IPV, psychological and physical. Participants self-reported demographic data and recent health histories, including COVID-19 tests results, related symptoms and degree of personal social distancing. We hypothesized that COVID-19 related factors would increase risks of IPV. Results: In this study, self-reported COVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration. Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with coronavirus, but were denied access to testing, psychological IPV victimization was 3 times greater than those who did not (Exp[B] =3.15, [1.19, 2.29] p <.05). For participants who reported testing positive to COVID-19, the odds of using psychological IPV (Exp[B] =3.24, [1.18, 8.89] p <.05) and physical IPV (Exp[B]=3.02, [1.12, 8.17] p <.05) against an intimate partner increased by more than 3 times. Conclusions and Relevance: Patient education and community outreach/health care system initiatives focused on IPV risk behaviors may help reduce the potential development of IPV. Continued surveillance is imperative to improve health and well-being along with effective intervention development and implementation.

PurposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the association between COVID-19 related conditions and the perpetration or experience of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the earliest stage of the pandemic.MethodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed data collected via an internet-based survey in the spring of 2020 from an online sample of noninstitutionalized adults in the United States (N = 2,045). More than half of the sample self-identified as being in an intimate relationship at the time of the study (58.2%, n = 1,183) and were used in the analysis. A four-item tool was used to assess IPV perpetration and victimization during the earliest stage of the pandemic. Respondents self-reported demographic data and recent health histories, including COVID-19 tests results, related symptoms, and degree of personal social distancing. We hypothesized that COVID-19 related factors would increase risks of IPV. Descriptive, correlational, and generalized linear modeling analysis techniques were employed.ResultsCOVID-19 impacted respondents had an increased risk of IPV victimization and perpetration. Among those who reported having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 but were denied access to testing, the odds of being a victim of psychological IPV was three times more likely than those who did not have symptoms. Respondents who reported testing positive to COVID-19 were two to three times more likely to experience or perpetrate psychological and physical IPV against an intimate partner. People who lost their job due to the pandemic were three to four times more likely to perpetrate IPV compared to those who remained employed.ConclusionsEspecially during this COVID-19 pandemic period, our results emphasize the need for an ongoing public-health response to IPV. Continued surveillance via effective screening, intervention development, and implementation is needed.

Objectives: Positive social support is critically important to postprison well-being outcomes. However, researchers and program developers are still trying to understand how to best promote stable and sustainable social support for formerly incarcerated individuals during reentry to the community. We sought to add to the body of knowledge on social support and prisoner reentry by comparing men and women releasing from prison on the quality (e.g., positive or negative) and amount of informal social support. Methods: A random sample of 395 male (n = 165) and female (n = 230) releasing prisoners participated in the study. After unadjusted bivariate comparisons, multivariate regression was conducted to identify gender differences in preincarceration social support quality of influence and anticipated number of postrelease support persons while controlling for important covariates such as substance abuse and mental illnesses. Results: Males reported higher rates of negative social support overall, and females reported higher rates of both mixed and positive social support compared to their male counterparts. Older participants reported higher levels of positive support compared to younger participants. Men of color reported significantly higher levels of positive support than their White male counterparts. Overall, women had higher prevalence of behavioral health factors that complicate quality of support. However, there were no differences in gender found for the amount of perceived social support available postrelease in the unadjusted models. Implications: Study findings suggest the need for gender-specific and culturally tailored targets for prisoner reentry programs addressing social support. Possible adaptations for interventions are explored.

Recent research findings indicate that patients are willing to disclose their use of violence to health-care providers if asked. Health-care providers have a unique opportunity to screen their patients for intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration; however, given the time constraints and limited personnel within medical offices and emergency-care facilities, instrument brevity is critically important. The development and evaluation of tools to screen for IPV perpetration in health-care settings, particularly brief instruments, is limited by the lack of adequate guidelines, clear institutional policies for screening, and reviews of the available literature. Given the need for validated measurement tools, we assessed the psychometric properties of measurement tools designed to quickly detect IPV perpetration by conducting a scoping review. Our search identified five measures meeting eligibility requirements. Inclusion criteria required that study information be published in a peer-reviewed journal, be published in English or Spanish languages, contain 10 or less items, report psychometric testing results, require no additional information, and be designed to detect IPV perpetration. We searched subject-specific databases and the bibliographies of relevant publications to identify studies. As part of appraising and synthesizing the evidence, we found most measures to have good reliability and validity. Most measures contained 2–5 items. Most studies were conducted in the United States and utilized an adequate sample size. There were considerable differences in how each of the measures determined a positive or negative screening. Gaps in the literature and areas for future research pertained to sample diversity, invariance testing, and practice guidelines for implementation.