PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
This scoping review explores the breadth and depth to which Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) in the United States and globally: (a) incorporate components that address the relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and social injustice, racism, economic inequality, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); (b) use restorative (RJ)/transformative justice (TJ) practices, individualized case management, partnerships with social justice actors, and strengths-based parenting training in current programming; and (c) measure effectiveness. In 2021, we searched 12 academic databases using a combination of search terms and Medical Subject Headings. In all, 27 articles that discussed at least one key concept relative to DVIP curricula were included in the final review. Findings suggest that very few DVIPs address ACEs and/or the relationship between structural violence, social inequality, and IPV perpetration. Even fewer programs use restorative practices including RJ or TJ. Furthermore, DVIPs use inconsistent methods and measures to evaluate effectiveness. To respond to IPV perpetration more effectively and create lasting change, DVIPs must adopt evidence-informed approaches that prioritize social and structural determinants of violence, trauma-informed care, and restoration.
摘要：
本范围审查探讨了美国和全球家庭暴力干预计划（DVIP）的广度和深度：（a）纳入解决亲密伴侣暴力（IPV）与社会不公正之间关系的组件，种族主义,经济不平等,和不良的童年经历(ACE)；(B)使用恢复性(RJ)/变革性司法(TJ)实践，个性化案例管理，与社会正义行为者的伙伴关系，和当前方案中基于优势的育儿培训；(c)衡量有效性。在2021年，我们使用搜索词和医学主题词的组合搜索了12个学术数据库。总之,最终审查中包括27篇文章，这些文章讨论了与DVIP课程相关的至少一个关键概念。研究结果表明，很少有DVIP解决ACE和/或结构性暴力之间的关系，社会不平等,和IPV渗透。更少的程序使用包括RJ或TJ在内的恢复性实践。此外，DVIP使用不一致的方法和措施来评估有效性。为了更有效地应对IPV行为并创造持久的变化，DVIP必须采用循证方法，优先考虑暴力的社会和结构决定因素，创伤知情护理，和恢复。
