Jeremiah A Schumm1, Timothy J O'Farrell2, Marie M Murphy3, Patrice Muchowski4. 1. Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy., Dayton, OH 45435-0001, United States of America. Electronic address: jeremiah.schumm@wright.edu. 2. VA Boston Healthcare System, VAMC-116B1, 940 Belmont St., Brockton, MA 02301, United States of America; Harvard Medical School at the VA Boston Healthcare System, VAMC-116B1, 940 Belmont St., Brockton, MA 02301, United States of America. Electronic address: timothy_ofarrell@hms.harvard.edu. 3. Harvard Medical School at the VA Boston Healthcare System, VAMC-116B1, 940 Belmont St., Brockton, MA 02301, United States of America. 4. AdCare Hospital of Worcester, Inc., 107 Lincoln Street, Worcester, MA 01605, United States of America.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have found reductions in female-to-male (F-to-M) and male-to-female (M-to-F) intimate partner violence (IPV) following alcohol-related treatment. Despite high prevalence of IPV among drug-abusing women, there are no controlled studies examining IPV following drug-related treatment for women. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing behavioral couples therapy plus individually-based treatment (BCT + IBT) versus individually-based treatment (IBT) for drug-abusing women and their male partners (N = 61; see O'Farrell, Schumm, Murphy, & Muchowski, 2017). We hypothesized that both treatments would have reductions in F-to-M and M-to-F IPV, but reductions would be greater in BCT + IBT. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Women were mostly White, and all exhibited drug use disorders (74% opioid use disorder). Forty-five percent had a male partner with a current substance problem. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) were administered at baseline and 12-months after treatment (85% follow-up rate). RESULTS:Psychological aggression frequency and F-to-M physical assault declined in both treatments. M-to-F physical assault, M-to-F sexual coercion, and female and male injury declined in IBT. However, these outcomes did not change in BCT + IBT. Thus, results showed that IBT, but not BCT + IBT, reduced M-to-F physical assault and M-to-F sexual coercion. Contrary to our hypothesis, IBT was lower than BCT + IBT on F-to-M and M-to-F physical assault, M-to-F sexual coercion, and female injury. M-to-F physical assault frequency was lower at follow-up if the male partner had versus did not have a current substance problem. CONCLUSIONS:BCT + IBT and IBT are viable interventions for reducing both partners' psychological aggression and F-to-M physical assault frequency among drug-abusing women and their male partners. IBT is promising for reducing M-to-F physical assault and female physical injury. There appears to be greater risk of M-to-F physical assault when the female but not male partner is substance-abusing.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Studies have found reductions in female-to-male (F-to-M) and male-to-female (M-to-F) intimate partner violence (IPV) following alcohol-related treatment. Despite high prevalence of IPV among drug-abusing women, there are no controlled studies examining IPV following drug-related treatment for women. This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial comparing behavioral couples therapy plus individually-based treatment (BCT + IBT) versus individually-based treatment (IBT) for drug-abusing women and their male partners (N = 61; see O'Farrell, Schumm, Murphy, & Muchowski, 2017). We hypothesized that both treatments would have reductions in F-to-M and M-to-F IPV, but reductions would be greater in BCT + IBT. MATERIAL AND METHODS:Women were mostly White, and all exhibited drug use disorders (74% opioid use disorder). Forty-five percent had a male partner with a current substance problem. The Revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2) were administered at baseline and 12-months after treatment (85% follow-up rate). RESULTS: Psychological aggression frequency and F-to-M physical assault declined in both treatments. M-to-F physical assault, M-to-F sexual coercion, and female and male injury declined in IBT. However, these outcomes did not change in BCT + IBT. Thus, results showed that IBT, but not BCT + IBT, reduced M-to-F physical assault and M-to-F sexual coercion. Contrary to our hypothesis, IBT was lower than BCT + IBT on F-to-M and M-to-F physical assault, M-to-F sexual coercion, and female injury. M-to-F physical assault frequency was lower at follow-up if the male partner had versus did not have a current substance problem. CONCLUSIONS: BCT + IBT and IBT are viable interventions for reducing both partners' psychological aggression and F-to-M physical assault frequency among drug-abusing women and their male partners. IBT is promising for reducing M-to-F physical assault and female physical injury. There appears to be greater risk of M-to-F physical assault when the female but not male partner is substance-abusing.