Análise das metodologias de intervenção psicossocial em grupo de homens autores de violência conjugal

Abstract

AnAlysis of psychosociAl intervention methodologies in group of men perpetrAtors of conjugAl violence resumo AbstractWith the phenomenon of violence against women and prerogatives of the Maria da Penha Law (Law 11,340), this paper analyzed the methodologies of social intervention of the extension project "Education and Psychosocial Care for Men Authors of Spousal Violence" in Manaus / Amazonas. The project supported the Education and Offender Accountability Secretariat of State of Amazonas Justice, in partnership with the Federal University of Amazonas. The tour was named "Group of meaning in Construction". These methods were analyzed by Documental research with qualitative approach. The methodologies were considered innovative in the northern region in contemplating the sociocultural relations, using language as the main instrument of dialog and accountability, potentiating care of self and other in marital and present an alternative service. To analyze the effectiveness of methodologies favors the reflection of social practices and professional make considering the complexity and dynamics of psychosocial phenomenon.

Contributions of a social technology from the perspective of men being sued for gender violence

“…This context contributes for men to see this law as an instrument specifically created to punish males without minimally investigating the reliability of the statements given by women, instead of seeing it as tool aimed at curbing and preventing domestic and family violence against women (24) . A different perception was found by a study carried out in South America, which points out that methodologies of intervention, created together with men who were the perpetrators of violence, create spaces for reflection, dialog, and for the development of new skills, contributing for the social confrontation of violence-related social problems but not being seen as a punishment for the members of the group (25) .…”

Mental health intervention research in Latin American correctional settings: A scoping review

“…The included studies were categorized by country, language, study design, type of institution, population type of intervention, and outcome. Most of the studies were from Brazil ( N = 14) (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2008, 2011; Billand & Facciolla Paiva, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento 2012; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011, 2020; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Da Silva Oliveira et al, 2010; Rodrigues, 2020; Pinheiro Said, 2019; Santos et al, 2010; Zambom et al, 2011), followed by Chile ( N = 6) (Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Mundt et al, 2019; Avello Saez et al, 2018). Three studies were from Colombia (Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017; Palomino et al, 1991) and Mexico, respectively (Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015).…”

“…Thirteen studies were available in Spanish (Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014; Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Mora-Arias et al, 2020; Palomino et al, 1991; Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020; Avello Saez et al, 2018; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015), 11 in Portuguese (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2008, 2011; Billand & Molinier, 2017; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Da Silva Oliveira et al, 2010; Rodrigues, 2020; Pinheiro Said, 2019; Zambom et al, 2011) and 10 in English (Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento, 2012; Capellan et al, 2022; Fortunato Costa et al, 2020; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Hutchinson et al, 2017; Mundt et al, 2019; Romero et al, 2018; Santos et al, 2010; Spence, 2019). In all, N = 24, 71% of the studies were only available in Spanish or Portuguese.…”

“…Seven studies were classified as expert opinion or consensus, because of their approach to interview different professional actors (psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, etc.) to identify important aspects of interventions applied in prisons (Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014; Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Avello Saez et al, 2018; Pinheiro Said, 2019).…”

“…As regards the institutional context of the studies, 21 were conducted in prisons (Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2008; Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017; Billand & Facciolla Paiva, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento, 2012; Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014; Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011, 2020; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Hutchinson et al, 2017; Mora-Arias et al, 2020; Palomino et al, 1991; Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020; Rodrigues, 2020; Avello Saez et al, 2018; Pinheiro Said, 2019; Santos et al, 2010; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015), two in open regime correctional centers (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Romero et al, 2018) and three in various settings working with persons on parole or recently released from prison (Capellan et al, 2022; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Mundt et al, 2019). Eight studies were undertaken in non-prison educational care centers (Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2011; Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Da Silva Oliveira et al, 2010; Spence, 2019; Zambom et al, 2011). Participants were required to take part in these psychosocial and educational treatment programs after or instead of going to prison based on convictions for different types of offenses.…”