Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence

Information

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013017.pub2Copy DOI
Database:
  1. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Version published:
  1. 01 July 2020see what's new
Type:
  1. Intervention
Stage:
  1. Review
Cochrane Editorial Group:
  1. Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group

Copyright:
  1. Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Article metrics

Altmetric:

Cited by:

Cited 0 times via Crossref Cited-by Linking

Collapse

Authors

  • Mohajer Hameed

    Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

  • Lorna O'Doherty

    Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Coventry University, Coventry, UK

  • Gail Gilchrist

    National Addiction Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK

  • Judit Tirado-Muñoz

    Addiction Research Group, IMIM-Institut Hospital del Mar d’Investigacions Mèdiques, Barcelona, Spain

  • Angela Taft

    The Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia

  • Patty Chondros

    Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

  • Gene Feder

    Centre for Academic Primary Care, Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

  • Melissa Tan

    Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

  • Kelsey Hegarty

    Correspondence to: Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    [email protected]

    The Royal Women's Hospital, Victoria, Australia

Contributions of authors

Drafting of protocol: MT, KH, LOD, GF, GG, JT, AT, and PC.
Search strategy: MT and KH.
Selection of trials: MH, LOD, JTM, GG and KH.
Extraction of data: MH, LOD, GG, JTM, AT.
Data entry into Review Manager 5.3: MH.
Analysis and interpretation of analysis: MH, PC and KH.
Drafting of review: MH, KH, LOD, GF, GG, JTM, AT and PC.
Topic expertise and editing: MH, KH, LOD, GF, GG, JTM, AT, JR, and PC.
Updating of review: MH and KH.

Sources of support

Internal sources

  • The University of Melbourne, Australia

    Support for MT

External sources

  • Australian General Practice Training, Australia

    Funding support for MT

Declarations of interest

We acknowledge that the following authors were involved in the cited trials. These trials met the inclusion criteria for this review and were included. Authors' knowledge about these trials may represent a greater availability of knowledge about those specific trials. We ensured that no‐one involved in a particular trial extracted data from their own trial or assessed that trial for risk of bias.

MH: no conflicts of interest.
LOD: co‐investigator of WEAVE trial (Hegarty 2013).
GG: co‐investigator of an adapted version of the Women’s Wellness Treatment trial (Tirado‐Muñoz 2015).
JTM: lead investigator of an adapted version of the Women’s Wellness Treatment trial (Tirado‐Muñoz 2015).
AT: co‐investigator of WEAVE (Hegarty 2013) and I‐DECIDE trial (Hegarty 2019).
PC: co‐investigator of WEAVE trial (Hegarty 2013).
GF: principal investigator of PATH trial (Ferrari 2018), co‐investigator WEAVE trial (Hegarty 2013), chair of the WHO Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Assault Guidelines Development Group and chair of the UK NICE Domestic Violence Programme Development Group.
MT: no conflicts of interest.
KH: lead investigator of WEAVE (Hegarty 2013) and I‐DECIDE trial (Hegarty 2019).

Acknowledgements

The review authors thank the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders' (CCMD) editorial team for providing guidance during the completion of the review. We developed search strategies in collaboration with CCMD's Information Specialist. We would also like to thank Jim Harley for administrative support.

The review authors and the CCMD Editorial Team are grateful to the following peer reviewers for their time and comments: Alyson Huntley, Nuala Livingstone, and Katherine Thomas. They would also like to thank Cochrane Copy Edit Support for the team's help.

CRG funding acknowledgement: the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the largest single funder of the CCMD Group.

Disclaimer: the views and opinions expressed herein are those of the review authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the NIHR, the National Health Service or the Department of Health and Social Care.

Version history

Published

Title

Stage

Authors

Version

2020 Jul 01

Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence

Review

Mohajer Hameed, Lorna O'Doherty, Gail Gilchrist, Judit Tirado-Muñoz, Angela Taft, Patty Chondros, Gene Feder, Melissa Tan, Kelsey Hegarty

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013017.pub2

2018 May 15

Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence

Protocol

Melissa Tan, Lorna O'Doherty, Gail Gilchrist, Angela Taft, Gene Feder, Judit Tirado Muñoz, Patty Chondros, Laura Sadowski, Kelsey Hegarty

https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013017

Differences between protocol and review

In our protocol (Tan 2018), we stated that the timing of outcome assessment would include short‐term time frames classified as zero to six months, medium‐term greater than six months to 12 months, and long‐term as periods greater than 12 months. As this did not distinguish which follow‐up time point six months would fall into, we classified the timing of outcome assessments as short‐term (up to 6 months), medium‐term (six to under 12 months) and long‐term (12 or more months).

A further difference relates to intensity of interventions. In the protocol we classified this as two to five sessions and five or more sessions. As it is unclear where five sessions should be included, in this review we changed intensity of interventions to include up to four sessions and five or more sessions.

For 'Summary of findings' table, our protocol did not specify whether we would present dichotomous or continuous outcomes. In this review, we decided to present continuous outcomes.

Keywords

MeSH

PICOs

Population
Intervention
Comparison
Outcome

The PICO model is widely used and taught in evidence-based health care as a strategy for formulating questions and search strategies and for characterizing clinical studies or meta-analyses. PICO stands for four different potential components of a clinical question: Patient, Population or Problem; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome.

See more on using PICO in the Cochrane Handbook.

Trial flow diagram

Figures and Tables -
Figure 1

Trial flow diagram

Risk of Bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included trials.

Figures and Tables -
Figure 2

Risk of Bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included trials.

original image

Figures and Tables -
Figure 3

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Intervention vs Control, outcome: 1.1 Depression (continuous).

Figures and Tables -
Figure 4

Funnel plot of comparison: 1 Intervention vs Control, outcome: 1.1 Depression (continuous).

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 1: Depression (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 1: Depression (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 2: Depression (categorical)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 2: Depression (categorical)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 3: Depression (recruitment setting of participants)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 3: Depression (recruitment setting of participants)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 4: Depression (type of intervention)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 4: Depression (type of intervention)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 5: Depression (intensity of intervention)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 5: Depression (intensity of intervention)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 6: Depression (person delivering the intervention)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 6: Depression (person delivering the intervention)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 7: Self‐efficacy

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 7: Self‐efficacy

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 8: Dropouts from treatment

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 8: Dropouts from treatment

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 9: Mental health

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 9: Mental health

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 10: Anxiety (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.10

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 10: Anxiety (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 11: Anxiety (categorical)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 11: Anxiety (categorical)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 12: Post‐traumatic stress disorder (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 12: Post‐traumatic stress disorder (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 13: Quality of life

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 13: Quality of life

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 14: Re‐exposure to IPV (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 14: Re‐exposure to IPV (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 15: Re‐exposure to IPV (categorical)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.15

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 15: Re‐exposure to IPV (categorical)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 16: Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.16

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 16: Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 17: Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (categorical)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.17

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 17: Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (categorical)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 18: Use of healthcare and IPV services

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.18

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 18: Use of healthcare and IPV services

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 19: Social support (continuous)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.19

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 19: Social support (continuous)

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 20: Social support (categorical)

Figures and Tables -
Analysis 1.20

Comparison 1: Intervention vs Control, Outcome 20: Social support (categorical)

Summary of findings 1. Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence

Psychological therapies compared to comparator intervention (e.g. usual care, no treatment or minimal treatment) for women who experience intimate partner violence

Patient or population: women aged 16 years and older who self‐report previous or current experience of intimate partner violence
Setting: healthcare settings, community, shelter and refuge settings
Intervention: psychological therapies, classified according to Cochrane Common Mental Disorder's psychological therapies list to include (but not limited to) a wide range of interventions that target cognition, motivation and behaviour which aim at alleviating distress or impairment
Comparison: comparator intervention (e.g. usual care, no treatment or minimal treatment)

Outcomes

Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

№ of participants
(trials)

Certainty of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Risk with comparator intervention (e.g. usual care, no treatment or minimal treatment)

Risk with psychological therapies

Depression score

Scales: Beck Depression Inventory, Center for Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale, Patient Health Questionnaire

Direction: lower better

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

The mean depression score ranged from 11.1 to 24.2

SMD 0.24 lower
(0.47 lower to 0.01 lower)

600
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
Moderatea

This corresponds to a small effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992

Self‐efficacy score

Scale: Generalized Self‐Efficacy Scale

Direction: higher better

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

The mean self‐efficacy score was 28.1

SMD 0.12 lower
(0.33 lower to 0.09 higher)

346
(1 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

This effect approaches zero

Dropouts from treatment

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

Trial population

OR 1.04
(0.75 to 1.44)

840
(5 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,c

This effect approaches zero

263 per 1000

271 per 1000
(211 to 340)

Anxiety score

Scales: Beck Anxiety Inventory, State‐Trait Anxiety Inventory and Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale

Direction: lower better

Follow‐up: short‐term (under 6 months)

The mean anxiety score ranged from 8 to 53.1

SMD 0.96 lower
(1.29 lower to 0.63 lower)

158
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowd

This corresponds to large effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992

Post‐traumatic stress disorder Score

Scale: Clinician Administered PTSD Scale, Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms— Interview, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist

Direction: lower better

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

The mean post‐traumatic stress disorder score ranged from 19.5 to 36.5

SMD 0.24 lower
(0.54 lower to 0.06 higher)

484
(4 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,c

This corresponds to a small effect according to conventions proposed by Cohen 1992. However the 95% confidence interval indicate we are uncertain whether psychological therapies reduce post‐traumatic stress disorder

Re‐exposure to IPV score

Scales: Revised Conflict Tactics Scales, Composite Abuse Scale

Direction: lower better

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

The mean re‐exposure to IPV score was 6.1 and 8.7

SMD 0.03 higher
(0.14 lower to 0.20 higher)

547
(2 RCTs)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowa,e

This effect approaches zero

Safety planning and/or safety behaviour score

Service use and activities questionnaire

Direction: higher better

Follow‐up: medium‐term (6 to under 12 months)

The mean safety planning and/or safety behaviour score was 4.2

SMD 0.04 higher
(0.18 lower to 0.25 higher)

337
(1 RCT)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
Lowb

This effect approaches zero

*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).

CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

aDowngraded one level due to unclear risk of bias in allocation concealment (risk of bias).
bDowngraded two level due to very small number of trials / participants (imprecision).
cDowngraded one level due to inconsistency of results across trials (inconsistency).
dDowngraded two level due to high risk of bias in allocation concealment (risk of bias).
eDowngraded one level due to small number of trials / participants (imprecision).

Figures and Tables -
Summary of findings 1. Psychological therapies for women who experience intimate partner violence
Comparison 1. Intervention vs Control

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1.1 Depression (continuous) Show forest plot

17

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

15

1247

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.45 [‐0.67, ‐0.22]

1.1.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

4

600

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.47, ‐0.01]

1.1.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

3

503

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.08 [‐0.30, 0.14]

1.2 Depression (categorical) Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.2.1 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

2

528

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.68 [0.47, 0.98]

1.2.2 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

195

Odds Ratio (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.50 [0.29, 0.89]

1.3 Depression (recruitment setting of participants) Show forest plot

17

1729

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.55, ‐0.17]

1.3.1 Healthcare

6

519

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.18 [‐0.38, 0.01]

1.3.2 Community

5

469

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.62, 0.15]

1.3.3 Shelter / refuge

1

52

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐1.13, 0.02]

1.3.4 Various

5

689

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.55 [‐0.96, ‐0.13]

1.4 Depression (type of intervention) Show forest plot

16

1604

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.37, ‐0.11]

1.4.1 Cognitive behavioral therapy

4

262

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.31 [‐0.55, ‐0.06]

1.4.2 Humanistic therapies

4

161

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.47 [‐0.91, ‐0.03]

1.4.3 Integrative therapies

6

892

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.23, 0.04]

1.4.4 Other psychologically‐oriented interventions

2

289

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.41 [‐0.99, 0.16]

1.5 Depression (intensity of intervention) Show forest plot

17

1729

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.55, ‐0.17]

1.5.1 Up to four sessions

5

644

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.03 [‐0.18, 0.13]

1.5.2 Five or more sessions

12

1085

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.49 [‐0.73, ‐0.25]

1.6 Depression (person delivering the intervention) Show forest plot

15

1342

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.36 [‐0.57, ‐0.16]

1.6.1 healthcare workers

10

649

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.42 [‐0.73, ‐0.11]

1.6.2 non‐healthcare workers

5

693

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.21 [‐0.39, ‐0.03]

1.7 Self‐efficacy Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.7.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

3

279

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.20 [‐0.22, 0.63]

1.7.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

346

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.33, 0.09]

1.7.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

331

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.23 [‐0.45, ‐0.01]

1.8 Dropouts from treatment Show forest plot

33

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.8.1 Short‐term FU (up to 6 months)

22

3022

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.98, 1.48]

1.8.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to 12 months)

5

840

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.04 [0.75, 1.44]

1.8.3 Long‐term FU (greater than 12 months)

6

1655

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.08 [0.85, 1.38]

1.9 Mental health Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.9.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

2

353

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.34 [‐0.55, ‐0.13]

1.9.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

2

219

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.11 [‐0.38, 0.16]

1.9.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

2

355

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.48, ‐0.06]

1.10 Anxiety (continuous) Show forest plot

5

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.10.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

4

158

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.96 [‐1.29, ‐0.63]

1.10.2 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

166

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.20 [‐0.51, 0.10]

1.11 Anxiety (categorical) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.11.1 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

192

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.82 [0.45, 1.49]

1.11.2 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

195

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.87 [0.48, 1.57]

1.12 Post‐traumatic stress disorder (continuous) Show forest plot

10

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.12.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

9

1150

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.48 [‐0.80, ‐0.16]

1.12.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

4

484

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.24 [‐0.54, 0.06]

1.12.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

170

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.27 [‐0.57, 0.04]

1.13 Quality of life Show forest plot

4

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.13.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

2

382

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.16 [‐0.04, 0.36]

1.13.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

2

557

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.10 [‐0.07, 0.27]

1.13.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

4

699

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.11 [‐0.04, 0.25]

1.14 Re‐exposure to IPV (continuous) Show forest plot

9

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.14.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

7

749

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.00 [‐0.29, 0.29]

1.14.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

2

547

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.03 [‐0.14, 0.20]

1.14.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

4

837

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

‐0.07 [‐0.20, 0.07]

1.15 Re‐exposure to IPV (categorical) Show forest plot

7

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.15.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

5

797

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.45 [0.21, 0.96]

1.15.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

186

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.29 [0.55, 3.01]

1.15.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

2

381

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.28, 2.11]

1.16 Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (continuous) Show forest plot

1

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.16.1 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

337

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.04 [‐0.18, 0.25]

1.16.2 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

318

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.00 [‐0.22, 0.22]

1.17 Safety planning and/or safety behaviour (categorical) Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.17.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

1

138

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.38 [0.66, 2.89]

1.17.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

191

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.25 [0.68, 2.27]

1.17.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

192

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

2.14 [1.18, 3.91]

1.18 Use of healthcare and IPV services Show forest plot

2

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.18.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

1

371

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.60 [0.68, 3.76]

1.18.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

364

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

1.21 [0.44, 3.33]

1.18.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

2

526

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.79 [0.21, 2.97]

1.19 Social support (continuous) Show forest plot

2

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.19.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

2

245

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.31 [‐0.38, 1.00]

1.19.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

2

235

Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

0.05 [‐0.21, 0.31]

1.20 Social support (categorical) Show forest plot

1

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.20.1 Short‐term FU (under 6 months)

1

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.20.2 Medium‐term FU (6 to under 12 months)

1

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.20.3 Long‐term FU (12 months and above)

1

Odds Ratio (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figures and Tables -
Comparison 1. Intervention vs Control