A Telephone Intervention for Substance-Using Adult Male Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence

Abstract

Objective To preliminarily evaluate telephone-delivered motivational enhancement therapy (MET) in motivating unadjudicated and nontreatment seeking intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators, who also use substances, to self-refer into treatment. Method 124 adult men were recruited via a multimedia marketing campaign and were randomly assigned to the intervention (MET) or comparison group following a baseline assessment. Participants in the MET condition received a personalized feedback report on their IPV and substance-use behaviors, consequences, and social norms beliefs. Results Results supported the likely effectiveness of MET in short-term reduction of IPV behavior, increasing motivation for treatment seeking, and changing perceived norms for IPV and substance abuse (SA). Conclusions Applications for brief MET interventions to facilitate voluntary treatment entry among substance-using IPV perpetrators are discussed.

Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programs: A Proposal for Evidence-Based Standards in the United States

“…Among the more promising findings have been for psychoeducational programs that incorporate an MI component. MI significantly predicts increased motivation and responsibility taking among partner violent men as well as a stronger client-facilitator alliance and lower recidivism rates (Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Musser et al, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). MI techniques also have been significantly correlated with group cohesion, which in turn is correlated with increased motivation as well as reduced rates of recidivism (Alexander, Morris, Tracy, & Frye, 2010;Taft et al, 2003).…”

“…(p. 1) Such concerns are, to some extent, valid, but the danger to victims is unlikely to be with the modality per se but rather the therapist's skills set and competence, and whether or not a client acquires early on the necessary emotion management skills with which to stop their abuse, Murphy and Eckhardt (2005) argue that individual treatment can hold perpetrators more accountable in comparison to group treatment, particularly those groups that are too large or led by poorly trained facilitators who are unable to prevent negative role modeling and reinforcement. So far, the only outcome studies to have been published on individual psychotherapy have focused on the effectiveness of MI techniques delivered in the one-on-one format but only for a short number of sessions (Crane & Eckhardt, 2013;Crane, Eckhardt, & Schlauch, 2015;Kistenmacher & Weiss, 2008;Mbilinyi et al, 2011;Murphy, Linehan, Reyner, Musser, & Taft, 2012;Musser, Semiatin, Taft, & Murphy, 2008;Woodin & O'Leary, 2010). (The empirically demonstrated effectiveness of MI is discussed in an upcoming section.)…”

Childhood Domestic Violence Exposure among a Community Sample of Adult Perpetrators: What Mediates the Connection?

“…The parent study, the Men’s Domestic Abuse Check-Up (MDACU), developed and preliminarily evaluated a telephone-based intervention to reach non-treatment-seeking IPV perpetrators who were also using substances, and motivate them to self-refer into treatment (see Mbilinyi et al, 2011; Roffman, Edleson, Neighbors, Mbilinyi, & Walker, 2008). The University of Washington’s Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures.…”

“…Eligible participants were randomly assigned to a telephone-delivered motivational enhancement therapy session (experimental condition) or mailed IPV and substance abuse educational information (comparison condition). Following receipt of either intervention, participants completed follow-up assessments by telephone after one week and one month (for more information on study procedures, see Mbilinyi et al, 2011). The 124 participants were 65.9% White, 16.9% Black or African American, 4% American Indian/Alaska Native, 3.2% Native Hawaiian, 2.4% multiracial, and 1.6% Asian (see Table 1 for demographics by childhood DV exposure), and 94% of the participants identified themselves as non-Hispanic and non-Latino.…”

Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy in Depressed Primary Care Patients with Co-Occurring Problematic Alcohol Use: Effect of Telephone-Administered vs. Face-to-Face Treatment—A Secondary Analysis

“…Telephone delivery is one non face-to-face method, and literature has found telephone-administered interventions to be feasible (Carter et al 2008; Hubbard et al 2007; Mbilinyi et al 2011; McKay et al 2011) and effective in individuals with a substance use disorder in primary care (Bischof et al 2008; Brown et al 2007; Oslin et al 2003; Stotts, Diclemente & Dolan-Mullen 2002; Tait et al 2007; Zanjani, Bush & Oslin 2010; Zanjani et al 2008) and addiction-focused settings (Cacciola et al 2008; Chong & Herman-Stahl 2003; Godley et al 2010; Hall & Huber 2000; Horng & Chueh 2004; Karno et al 2012; McKay et al 2010; Mulleady 2001; Parker, Turk & Busby 2002; Rus-Makovec & Cebasek-Travnik 2008). Telephone delivery is commonly believed to overcome treatment barriers present in traditional face-to-face delivery.…”