Dropout among perpetrators of intimate partner violence attending an intervention program

Abstract

Batterer intervention programs (BIPs) are one of the most relevant strategies to reduce intimate partner violence (IPV). However, the rates of dropout are significantly high, which may impact the effectiveness of such strategies. Literature has identified several factors associated with BIP dropout; nonetheless findings remain inconsistent. The aims of this study were to analyze the differences between perpetrators who completed the program and those who droped out, in terms of sociodemographic, violence-related and intrapersonal variables, as well as identify the predictors of dropout. 83 IPV perpetrators completed a set of measures that assessed attitudes toward domestic violence, physical and psychological abuse of a partner, aggression, coping skills, and readiness to change. Variables related to past criminal history and sociodemographics were also colletected. 42.2% of IPV perpetrators failed to complete the intervention program. The results revealed that age and previous convictions by other crimes than IPV discriminated perpetrators who completed the program from those who droped out, such that, being young and having a previous conviction predicted dropout. These findings reveal a need to further analyze the impact of these factors so BIPs can be tailored to meet the specificities of IPV perpetrators and prevent treatment dropout.

Effectiveness of the Motivational Interviewing Techniques with Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Regarding the proximal outcomes, although SPIP plus MIT participants revealed higher treatment adherence than SPIP alone participants, results did not reach statistical significance following other studies (e.g., Lila et al, 2018), and the dropout rate is high even in the SPIP plus MIT group. The free-ofcharge nature of the intervention (in both sites) might explain the high dropout rate (Cunha et al, 2022). However, SPIP plus MIT participants finished the intervention in a more advanced stage of change and revealed more readiness to change than participants in the SPIP alone condition.…”

“…The sample comprises 50 male perpetrators of IPV, both court-and self-referred to a community-based PIP implemented in two sites (Cunha et al, 2022;Cunha & Gonçalves, 2015). Inclusion criteria were: (a) being an adult male; (b) having perpetrated physical, psychological, and/or sexual violence against a female intimate partner or expartner; and (c) being able to read and write.…”

“…The Promotion and Intervention Program with Batterers (PPRIAC) was developed in 2010 for self-or court-referred adult heterosexual male perpetrators of IPV (Cunha et al, 2022;Cunha & Gonçalves, 2015) (NCT05484440).…”

“…Since then, we have witnessed a proliferation of PIPs, often constituting an alternative measure to imprisonment (Boots et al, 2016). Despite the growing number of studies (e.g., Cunha et al, 2022;Ferrer-Perez & Bosch-Fiol, 2018;Morrison et al, 2018Cunha & Gonçalves, 2015 and meta-analyses (e.g., Arce et al, 2020;Karakurt et al, 2019;Stephens Lewis et al, 2021) assessing the effectiveness of PIPs, results remain uncertain. In addition, literature has highlighted some of the main problems related to PIPs, such as the high attrition and dropout rates or the low motivation and readiness for change (e.g., Aaron & Beaulaurier, 2017;Butters et al, 2021).…”

Intimate Partner Violence: Perceptions and Attributions of Male Perpetrators

“…S. Cunha & Goncalves, 2016), or in the intervention with abusive men (e.g., O. Cunha & Gonçalves, 2015;O. Cunha et al, 2022).…”