Randomised pilot and feasibility trial of a group intervention for men who perpetrate intimate partner violence against women.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for robust evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of domestic abuse perpetrator programmes in reducing abusive behaviour and improving wellbeing for victim/survivors. While any randomised controlled trial can present difficulties in terms of recruitment and retention, conducting such a trial with domestic abuse perpetrators is particularly challenging. This paper reports the pilot and feasibility trial of a voluntary domestic abuse perpetrator group programme in the United Kingdom. METHODS: This was a pragmatic individually randomised pilot and feasibility trial with an integrated qualitative study in one site (covering three local-authority areas) in England. Male perpetrators were randomised to either the intervention or usual care. The intervention was a 23-week group programme for male perpetrators in heterosexual relationships, with an average of three one-to-one sessions, and one-to-one support for female current- or ex-partners delivered by third sector organisations. There was no active control treatment for men, and partners of control men were signposted towards domestic abuse support services. Data were collected at three-monthly intervals for nine months from male and female participants. The main objectives assessed were recruitment, randomisation, retention, data completeness, fidelity to the intervention model, and acceptability of the trial design. RESULTS: This study recruited 36 men (22 randomly allocated to attend the intervention group programme, 14 to usual care), and 15 current- or ex-partners (39% of eligible partners). Retention and completeness of data were high: 67% of male (24/36), and 80% (12/15) of female participants completed the self-reported questionnaire at nine months. A framework for assessing fidelity to the intervention was developed. In interviews, men who completed all or most of the intervention gave positive feedback and reported changes in their own behaviour. Partners were also largely supportive of the trial and were positive about the intervention. Participants who were not allocated to the intervention group reported feeling disappointed but understood the rationale for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: It was feasible to recruit, randomise and retain male perpetrators and female victim/survivors of abuse and collect self-reported outcome data. Participants were engaged in the intervention and reported positive benefits. The trial design was seen as acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71797549, submitted 03/08/2017, retrospectively registered 27/05/2022.

What Is Justice? Perspectives of Victims-Survivors of Gender-Based Violence.

This article explores "how do victims-survivors of gender-based violence (GBV) experience and perceive justice?" based on interviews with 251 victims-survivors with experience of different types of GBV and criminal, civil, and family justice systems. Victims-survivors were found to have multiple perceptions of justice, related to different points in their journey following abuse and regarding individual, community, and societal responses. Perceptions relate to accountability; fairness in outcome and process; protection from future harm; recognition; agency; empowerment; affective justice; reparation; and social transformation. Current understandings of justice in legislative and policy approaches reproduce the "justice gap" by failing to take account of how survivors themselves understand and demand justice.

Honor-Based Abuse in England and Wales: Who Does What to Whom?

Key findings are presented from an empirical study profiling 1,474 cases of honor-based abuse (HBA) known to police and victim services in England and Wales. Thematic and quantitative (regression) analyses were used to investigate whether and how HBA differed from other forms of domestic abuse and forced marriage. A new typology of HBA is proposed, based principally on the relationship(s) between victim and perpetrator(s). Interpreted within an overarching lens of gender-based violence, it is argued that Type 1 (partner abuse) and Type 3 (partner plus family abuse) are culturally specific forms of domestic abuse, whereas Type 2 (family abuse) is distinct.