@article{ref1,
title="Conjoint treatment for intimate partner violence: a systematic review and implications",
journal="Couple and family psychology",
year="2016",
author="Armenti, Nicholas A. and Babcock, Julia Caroline",
volume="5",
number="2",
pages="109-123",
abstract="Gender-specific men-only interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV) have had limited success beyond the effects of arrest alone. This review outlines current U.S. state-mandated treatments for IPV, acknowledges how conjoint treatment may better address a subtype of IPV that is not motivated by power and control, examines and reviews previously conducted couples-based treatments, and highlights policy implications and future directions. Empirical findings and theoretical support for the Duluth model, cognitive-behavioral approaches, and IPV typologies are presented, followed by a systematic review of selected quasi- and true experimental studies on couples-based approaches for IPV. U.S. state guidelines that absolutely exclude conjoint approaches are overly restrictive, considering the poor evidence of effectiveness for current gender-specific groups. Further, the theoretical foundations of most men-only groups assume unilateral, male-to-female violence, which does not fit at least one-third of court-involved cases and leaves treatment needs of couples experiencing problematic relationship dynamics unmet. For a carefully screened subset of couples that experience predominantly &quot;situational violence,&quot; conjoint communication and relationship skills training groups may be a viable alternative to the Duluth model and cognitive-behavioral men-only groups.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="2160-4096",
doi="10.1037/cfp0000060",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000060"
}