Motivational Interview Techniques and the Effectiveness of Intervention Programs With Perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is widely recognized as a severe public health issue. Perpetrators’ Intervention Programs (PIPs) have been essential to prevent recidivism, and the incorporation of Motivational Interview Techniques (MIT) has shown to be an added value in this area. Objective: The present systematic review aims to analyze the incorporation of MIT (i.e., pre-treatment, isolated treatment, and conjoined with PIPs) in interventions with IPV perpetrators and its potential impact on their behavior and attitudes regarding motivation for change and treatment compliance. Method: The following research equation was used: “Intimate Partner Violence” AND (“Perpetrator” OR “Batterer” OR “Offender”) AND (“Motivation” OR “Motivational Interview”) AND (“Intervention” OR “Intervention Program” OR “Batterer Intervention Program”) AND (“Effectiveness OR “Program Effectiveness”); in four separate databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and EBSCO. Studies in English, Portuguese, and Spanish were included, and 15 were identified according to the defined inclusion criteria. Results: Studies demonstrated that MIT increases attendance rates, treatment adherence, motivation for change, and behavioral and attitudinal outcomes. More specifically, MIT showed greater effectiveness among participants with low readiness to change and in the early stages of change. Conclusion: This systematic review corroborates the importance of incorporating MIT in PIPs to improve intervention efficacy.

Methodological Challenges in Group-based Randomised Controlled Trials for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators: A Meta-summary

“…We identified 23 systematic reviews/ meta-analytic evaluations of trials on the effects of male perpetrator programmes ( Akoensi et al, 2013 ; Aos et al, 2006 ; Arce et al, 2020 ; Arias et al, 2013 ; Babcock et al, 2004 ; Cheng et al, 2021 ; Feder et al, 2008 ; Feder & Wilson, 2005 ; Ferrer-Perez & Bosch-Fiol, 2018 ; Karakurt et al, 2019 ; Miller et al, 2013 ; Nesset et al, 2019 ; NICE, 2013 ; O’Connor et al, 2021 ; Pinto E Silva et al, 2022 ; Santirso et al, 2020 ; Satyen et al, 2022 ; Smedslund et al, 2011 ; Stephens-Lewis et al, 2021 ; Tarzia et al, 2020 ; Travers et al, 2021 ; Vigurs et al, 2016 ; Wilson et al, 2021 ). These 23 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were used to identify primary studies evaluating IPV perpetrator programmes, which is the main focus of this paper.…”

“…Furthermore, they only considered pre- and post-intervention results and did not differentiate between varied experimental conditions. Other recent systematic reviews have focused on different aspects of IPV interventions: a) effectiveness in different cultural contexts ( Satyen et al, 2022 ); b) effectiveness for male perpetrators or male victims in health settings ( Tarzia et al, 2020 ); c) comparison of experimental group versus group without any intervention ( Cheng et al, 2021 ); d) risk-need-responsivity framework ( Travers et al, 2021 ); e) motivational interviewing ( Pinto E Silva et al, 2022 ; Santirso et al, 2020 ); and f) substance abuse ( Stephens-Lewis et al, 2021 ).…”

Predictors of veteran attendance in an intimate partner violence intervention.

“…However, it is worth noting that participants of the Strength at Home program often experience reductions in alcohol use problems (Creech et al, 2023; Taft, Franz, et al, 2021), which suggests that if alcohol-related barriers to attendance were mitigated, those with comorbid alcohol and IPV use could especially benefit from the program. There is evidence for efficacy of motivational enhancements to IPV intervention to mitigate the effects of alcohol use on treatment compliance (Crane et al, 2015; Pinto e Silva et al, 2023). Future research should continue to explore the development and efficacy of such enhancements for IPV interventions.…”

Participants in Court-mandated Intervention Programs for Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators with Substance Use Problems: A Systematic Review of Specific Risk Factors

“…Consistent with the risk-needs-responsivity (RNR) model ( Andrews & Bonta, 2010 ), which strives for adapting intervention programs for IPV perpetrators to individual participant’s specific needs and matching intervention strategies based on risk factors, there is a “need for more individualized approaches to perpetrator treatment that emphasize assessment, motivation enhancement, and interventions targeting mental health and substance use” ( Butters et al, 2021 , p.399). For example, motivational strategies such as setting self-determined goals to establish and monitor individualized intervention objectives, including those related to ADUPs and identified risk factors (e.g., “reducing my anger levels during partner conflict”) have shown promising results in intervention programs for IPV perpetrators ( Lila et al, 2018 ; Pinto e Silva et al, 2022 ; Santirso et al, 2020 ). To further address identified risk factors, for instance, a trauma-informed approach would be recommended for IPV perpetrators with co-occurring ADUPs, a history of childhood trauma and psychological symptomatology ( Gilchrist et al, 2019 ; Karakurt et al, 2019 ; McKenna & Holtfreter, 2020 ).…”