ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In contrast to evidence for interventions supporting victim/survivors of domestic violence and abuse (DVA), the effectiveness of perpetrator programmes for reduction of abuse is uncertain. This study aims to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a perpetrator programme for men. METHODS: Pragmatic two-group individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded process and economic evaluation. Five centres in southwest England and South Wales aim to recruit 316 (reduced from original target of 366) male domestic abuse perpetrators. These will be randomised 2:1 to a community-based domestic abuse perpetrator programme (DAPP) or usual care comparator with 12-month follow-up. Female partners/ex-partners will be invited to join the study. The intervention for men comprises 23 weekly sessions of a group programme delivered in voluntary sector domestic abuse services. The intervention for female partners/ex-partners is one-to-one support from a safety worker. Men allocated to usual care receive no intervention; however, they are free to access other services. Their partners/ex-partners will be signposted to support services. Data is collected at baseline, and 4, 8 and 12 months' follow-up. The primary outcome is men's self-reported abusive behaviour measured by the Abusive Behaviour Inventory (ABI-29) at 12 months. Secondary measures include physical and mental health status and resource use alongside the abuse measure ABI (ABI-R) for partners/ex-partners and criminal justice contact for men. A mixed methods process evaluation and qualitative study will explore mechanisms of effectiveness, judge fidelity to the intervention model using interviews and group observations. The economic evaluation, over a 1-year time horizon from three perspectives (health and social care, public sector and society), will employ a cost-consequences framework reporting costs alongside economic outcomes (Quality-Adjusted Life Years derived from EQ-5D-5L, SF-12 and CHU-9D, and ICECAP-A) as well as the primary and other secondary outcomes. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide evidence of the (cost)effectiveness of a DAPP. The embedded process evaluation will further insights in the experiences and contexts of participants and their journey through a perpetrator programme, and the study will seek to address the omission in other studies of economic evaluations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15804282, April 1, 2019.
Subject(s)
Domestic Violence , Quality of Life , Female , Male , Humans , Cost-Benefit Analysis , England , Domestic Violence/prevention & control , Qualitative Research , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Women who have experienced domestic violence and abuse (DVA) are at increased risk of developing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD (CPTSD). In 2014-2015, we developed a prototype trauma-specific mindfulness-based cognitive therapy curriculum (TS-MBCT) for the treatment of PTSD in a DVA population. This study aimed to refine the prototype TS-MBCT and evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) testing its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: Intervention refinement phase was informed by evidence synthesis from a literature review, qualitative interviews with professionals and DVA survivors, and a consensus exercise with experts in trauma and mindfulness. We tested the refined TS-MBCT intervention in an individually randomised parallel group feasibility trial with pre-specified progression criteria, a traffic light system, and embedded process and health economics evaluations. RESULTS: The TS-MBCT intervention consisted of eight group sessions and home practice. We screened 109 women in a DVA agency and recruited 20 (15 TS-MBCT, 5 self-referral to National Health Service (NHS) psychological treatment), with 80% follow-up at 6 months. Our TS-MBCT intervention had 73% uptake, 100% retention, and high acceptability. Participants suggested recruitment via multiple agencies, and additional safety measures. Randomisation into the NHS control arm did not work due to long waiting lists and previous negative experiences. Three self-administered PTSD/CPTSD questionnaires produced differing outcomes thus a clinician administered measure might work better. We met six out of nine feasibility progression criteria at green and three at amber targets demonstrating that it is possible to conduct a full-size RCT of the TS-MBCT intervention after making minor amendments to recruitment and randomisation procedures, the control intervention, primary outcomes measures, and intervention content. At 6 months, none of the PTSD/CPTSD outcomes ruled out a clinically important difference between trial arms indicating that it is reasonable to proceed to a full-size RCT to estimate these outcomes with greater precision. CONCLUSIONS: A future RCT of the coMforT TS-MBCT intervention should have an internal pilot, recruit from multiple DVA agencies, NHS and non-NHS settings, have an active control psychological treatment, use robust randomisation and safety procedures, and clinician-administered measures for PTSD/CPTSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN64458065 11/01/2019.
