|Basu et al. 2009 ||USA|
|Randomized group intervention||3–12||Children: 20|
|To implement a community-based, manualized, psychoeducational intervention program targeting mothers and children exposed to IPV||10 weeks, 1.5 h/week for mothers, 1 h/week for children.|
Psychoeducational: Focus on different theme relating to IPV
|Waitlist||Pre- & 3 + 6-month FU||Mothers: severity of violence, distress, depression, trauma|
Children: perceived competence & social acceptance, feelings toward IPV at home
|No significant differences for depression, anxiety or trauma symptoms across the groups. The intervention group had the lowest levels of depression and anxiety symptoms compared to both the intervention and early termination groups over time. Children in the CG showed a decrease in anxiety and depression symptoms relative to the other groups immediately post intervention but not in the 3- or 6-month assessments. There were no significant differences for trauma symptoms.||3|
|Becker at al., 2008 ||USA|
|Non-randomized intervention||3–17||Children: 106 Mothers: 56||To implement a culturally influenced intervention program involving a sample largely identifying as from Asian and Pacific Island descent.||12 weeks, 1.5 h/week.|
Focus on different theme relating to IPV
|-||Pre- & post-intervention||Mothers: IPV related skills, parenting practices|
Children: IPV related skills, behavior checklist
|Children had significant improvement in ratings of violence-related from pre-post treatment. Significant decrease in internalizing and externalizing scores. Significant decrease in the proportion of children with clinically significant posttreatment psychopathology. Parents were observed to have significant improvement in their IPV related skills and parenting practices. ||3|
|Graham-Bermann, et al., 2015 ||USA|
|RCT||4–6||Mothers & children: 120||To compare the adjustment of children exposed to severe IPV who participated in the Pre Kids’ Club (PKC) while their mothers participated in the Mom’s Empowerment Program (MEP)||5 weeks, 2 sessions/week.|
Mothers: to enhance social and emotional adjustment.
Children: each session focuses on different topics related to IPV
|Waitlist||Pre- & post- intervention|
8 months FU
|Mothers: severity of violence.|
Children: behavior checklist (internalizing only)
|There was no statistically significant decrease in internalizing problems over time in the control group.|
For female children in the treatment group, there was a statistically significant decrease in internalizing problems at the 8-month follow up point. Under a per-protocol specification, there were statistically significant differences between the treatment and comparison groups.
|Macmillan & Harpur, 2003 ||Canada|
|Non-randomized intervention||6–12||Children: 47|
|To describe the well-being and functioning of this sample of children and parents who are living in the community and seeking out treatment.||10 weeks, 1.5 h/week.|
Children: addressing posttraumatic stress issues, IPV related skills, relaxation.
Mothers: promoting relationship building, positive discipline practices.
|-||Pre- & post- intervention||Parents: parenting stress|
Children: behavior checklist, depression, anxiety, trauma-related sequelae, understanding of abuse
|Children’s behavior problems (externalizing, internalizing, and total score) were significantly lowered, while children’s scores on the knowledge forms were significantly increased. Parenting stress significantly lowered. ||3|
|Jouriles et al., 2001 ||USA|
|RCT ||4–9||Mothers & children: 36||An experimental evaluation of a programme designed to reduce conduct problems of children of domestic violence victim mothers.||8 months, 1.5 h/week.|
Child management skills
|Monthly telephone calls||Pre-intervention 4, 8, 12, 16 months FU||Mothers: severity of violence|
Children: behavior checklist
Mothers & children: child management
|Significant improvement in externalizing over time. Slightly higher mean level of child management skills at assessment 3, and improving more rapidly in families in treatment condition. Mother’s psychological distress diminished over time. Level of conduct problems in intervention arm brought to within normal range, mothers gained more rapid and greater improvements in child management skills.||3.5|
|Waldman Levi & Weintraub, 2015 ||Israel|
|Non-randomized intervention||3–5||Children: 37|
|To examine the efficacy of filial therapy for mothers and their children in IPV shelters.||8 weeks, 30min/week.|
Opening (5 mins), joint play (20 mins), closure & separation (5 mins).
|Free play time||Pre- & post- intervention||Mothers & children: interactive behavior|
Children: play skills, playfulness.
|Children’s play skills significantly improved in the FI-OP group for sensitivity and limit setting. No differences fond in involvement, reciprocity, negative states. Children’s play skills significantly improved, but not regarding material management or participation. No difference in playfulness between groups.||2.5|
|Smith & Landreth, 2003 ||USA|
|Non-randomized intervention||4–10||Children: 11|
|To determine the effectiveness of intensive filial therapy as a method of intervention with child witnesses of domestic violence.||Filial therapy|
2–3 weeks, 12 sessions, 1.5 h/session
Combined parent training session and parent-child play session.
|Sibling group therapy||Pre- & post intervention||Mothers & children: empathy|
Children: behavior checklist, self-concept.
|Intervention group demonstrated significant improvement on all measures. Children in the intensive individual play therapy group scored significantly higher in self-concept than children in the filial therapy. There were no significant differences between the intensive filial therapy experimental group and the intensive sibling group play therapy comparison group on self-concept scores. Mothers achieved significantly higher levels of positive behavior.||3|
|Jouriles et al., 2009 ||USA|
|RCT||4–9||Mothers & children: 66||To replicate and extend findings from initial findings (Jouriles et al. 2001).||12 months, weekly home visits.|
Child management skills.
|Month-ly phone calls||Pre-intervention 4, 8, 12, 16, & 20 months FU||Mothers: severity of violence, parenting, psychological aggression, psychiatric symptoms, traumatic symptoms.|
Children: conduct problems, frequency of behaviors, oppositional behavior.
|Child conduct problems decreased more rapidly in the intervention group. For the follow-up period, conduct problems continued to decrease in the intervention group, but not in the comparison group. Although oppositional child behavior decreased more slowly than the other measures of child conduct problems, child behavior still decreased more rapidly in the intervention group than the comparison group during both the intervention and follow-up periods. During the intervention period, inconsistent and harsh parenting behaviors decreased in the Project Support group, and in the comparison group, with more rapid decreases in the Project Support group. During the follow-up period, no changes in inconsistent and harsh parenting behaviors emerged in either of the groups. Maternal psychiatric symptoms decreased during the intervention period in the Project Support group, and in the comparison group.||4|
|Macdonald et al., 2006 || ||Follow-up|| ||Mothers & children: 36||To assess the effects of Project Support on children’s conduct problems 24 months following the termination of services (32 months following shelter departure).|| || ||24 months||Mothers: aggression, contact w/partner, recurrence of violence.|
Children: oppositional behavior, behavior checklist, internalizing problems.
|Only 31% of children still in clinical level of conduct problems at either 16 months/32-month assessment points (compared to 71% in comparison group). Externalizing scale scores for intervention and comparison conditions at the 24-month follow-up assessment did not differ significantly from one another. Mean levels of internalizing problems did not differ between the treatment and comparison groups at the 24-month follow-up assessment. However, there were differences in the proportion of children in each group exhibiting clinical levels of internalizing problems.||3.5|
|Graham-Bermann et al., 2007 ||USA|
|RCT||6–12||Mothers & children: 181||To promote alternatives to aggression and address children’s beliefs about violence||10 weeks,|
Mothers: building parenting competence
Children: understanding IPV-related behavior
|Waitlist||Pre- & post-intervention|
|Mothers: severity of violence, social desirability|
Children: behavior checklist, attitudes about IPV
|Individual CM children displayed significantly greater improvement from baseline to post-intervention relative to controls in externalizing behavior problems and attitudes in the two-level model comparing change in individuals assigned to different conditions. Individual children in the CM condition made significantly greater changes in externalizing behavior problems from posttreatment to follow-up when compared with children in the CO condition. Significant deterioration in attitudes for individual CO children, suggesting that mothers may influence their children’s beliefs and attitudes about violence after participating in the intervention programme themselves||4|
|Graham-Bermann & Miller, 2013 ||USA|
|RCT||6–12||Mothers & children: 181||To assess the efficacy of a group intervention in relieving traumatic stress symptoms for women exposed to IPV.||10 weeks|
Mothers: building parenting competence
Children: process feelings re: IPV, IPV related skills.
|Waitlist||Pre- & post- intervention|
|Mothers: severity of violence, PTSD, social desirability|
|The more social desirability the less reported trauma symptoms. Significant reduction in traumatic stress symptoms for all 3 conditions from baseline to end of treatment. From baseline to follow up was bigger change.||3|
|Lieberman et al., 2005 ||USA|
Mixed clinical locations
|To evaluate the efficacy of child-parent psychotherapy (CPP) compared with case management plus separate treatment.||CPP 50 weeks, 60min/week.|
Children: free play
Mothers: managing the child and their experiences of IPV
Weekly joint sessions to enhance interactions
|Case manage-ment & usual care||Pre-intervention, 6 months into treatment||Children: exposure to community violence: behavior checklist, trauma.|
Mothers: life stress, psychiatric symptoms, traumatic stress disorder.
|Intervention group had a significant reduction in the number of trauma symptoms, whereas the comparison group did not. Significant reduction in behavior problems. Significant reductions in maternal avoidant symptoms for the intervention group post-intervention. Decline in PTSD diagnosis for mothers in both groups, although not statistically significant. ||4|
|Smith, 2016 ||Wales||Non-randomized intervention||7–11||Children: 147|
|To enhance the mother–child relationship, in addition to supporting other aspects of their recovery.||10 weeks, 2.5 hrs.|
Increase mother’s confidence in parenting.
|-||Pre- & post-intervention||Mothers: self-esteem, locus of control|
Children: self-esteem, well-being
Mothers & children: acceptance and rejection
|Mothers had significantly greater self-esteem, more confidence in their parenting abilities and more control over their child’s behavior. They were also more affectionate to their child. Children experienced fewer emotional and behavioral difficulties following DART. Children appeared to be experiencing significantly fewer emotional and behavioral difficulties following DART. The children’s self-esteem scores improved but this was not statistically significant. ||3|
|McWhirter, 2011 ||USA|
Family homeless shelter
|Randomised group intervention||6–12||Children: 48|
|To assess the clinical effectiveness of emotion-focused and goal-oriented treatments to reduce IPV and increase psychosocial well-being of women and children previously exposed to IPV||5 weeks, 1 hr/week mothers; 45min/week separate child sessions + 60min mother-child group session.|
Assigned to either emotion-focused or goal-oriented for both parts.
|Active control||Pre- & post- intervention||Mothers: family conflict, family bonding, quality of social support, depression, self-efficacy, readiness to change, alcohol use.|
Children: general psychological well-being, peer conflict, family conflict, self-esteem.
|Children in both groups reported decreases in family and peer conflict and increases in state of emotional well-being and self-esteem. Women in both groups reported decreases in depression and increases in family bonding and self-efficacy. Significantly greater decreases in family conflict were reported among goal-oriented participants and significantly greater increases in social support were reported among emotion-focused participants.||4|
|Cohen et al., 2011 ||USA|
Community IPV center
|To test whether abbreviated TF-CBT would improve children’s total IPV-related symptoms significantly more than usual care: child-centered therapy (CCT). ||Individual TF-CBT.|
8 weeks, 45mins/week.
Developing positive coping strategies in separate sessions.
2 joint sessions to share IPV experiences.
|Usual care||Pre- & post-intervention||Children: trauma, anxiety, depression, behavior checklist, cognitive functioning, verbal & non-verbal intelligence.||The intervention group experienced significantly greater improvements in overall trauma score, hyperarousal, and anxiety.||4|
|Sullivan et al., 2004 ||USA|
|Non-randomized intervention||8–16||Children: 79 Mothers: 46||To address the needs of parents and children regarding coping abilities, parenting skills, safety planning skills, and the effects of post violence stress||9 weeks.|
Focus on different theme relating to IPV
|-||Pre- & post- intervention||Mothers: parenting stress|
Children: behavior checklist, trauma symptoms, anxiety, depression, anger, dissociation, self-blame.
|For child behavior checklist, only 3 of the 14 measures were significantly reduced from pre-test to post-test: anxious or depressive behaviors, internalizing behaviors, and externalizing behaviors. Findings suggest the intervention programme significantly reduced trauma symptoms in the clinical subsample and significantly reduced the Anger subscale in the entire sample. Within the parenting stress scale child domain: adaptability, mood, reinforcing parent, and distractibility or hyperactivity were significant. In the parent domain, isolation, life stress, and health were significantly improved at post-test. However, the findings on the latter two subscales may lack clinical significance because both the pre-test and post-test health scores were in the non-clinical range and both the pre-test and post-test life stress scores continued to score in the clinical range. Children’s self-blame was significantly reduced at post-test in the overall sample.||2|
|Carter et al., 2003 ||USA|
IPV Violence programme
|Non-randomized intervention||4–18||Children: 192|
|To build safety planning skills, self-esteem, ways of expressing feelings, prosocial skills, conflict resolution skills, parent-child relationship skills, identify and strengthen support systems; and provide an atmosphere for self-disclosure and therapeutic interventions to heal trauma responses.||12 weeks, 1.5 h/week.|
Individual, group, family therapy services.
Focus on different theme relating to IPV
|-||Pre- & post-intervention ||Parents: parenting stress.|
Children: occurrence of behavior change, ability to express emotions, social skills & adaptive functioning, PTSD, self-concept, family worries, family stereotypes.
|Statistically significant decrease in intrapersonal distress, somatic symptoms, interpersonal relations, social problems and behavioral dysfunction, although interpersonal distress and interpersonal relations remained clinically significant. There were no significant changes in social skills following treatment. However, parents reported significantly fewer behavior problems in their children following treatment. Following treatment, children reported having significantly fewer worries about their moms and themselves being vulnerable to injury.||3|
|Lieberman et al., 2006 || ||Follow-up|| ||Children: 50|
| ||Monthly telephone calls|| ||6-month FU||Mothers: psychiatric symptoms|
Children: behavior problems.
|Intervention group had significant reductions in child behavior problems and maternal symptoms. Decline in symptom severity was statistically significant only for the CPP group mothers.|| |