logologo

Popular Boards

2 Mentions
Reinie Cordier, Donna Chung, Sarah Wilkes‐Gillan | Trauma Violence & Abuse | (2019)
Primary Link Pubmed DOI Openalex

Abstract

Preventing and reducing domestic violence is a national and international social priority. Civil law protection orders (POs) have been the primary legal response to domestic violence internationally for a number of decades. However, evidence of their effectiveness is mixed due to variations in application within and across countries and variable quality of the research with most studies at high risk of bias. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of POs in reducing violation rates of domestic violence, compare violation rates reported by victims and police reports, and identify factors that influence violation and reoffense. Two electronic databases were searched; two independent researchers screened abstracts. Data were collected and assessed methodologically, using the Kmet Checklist Appraisal Tool and National Health and Medical Research Council Hierarchy of Evidence. Twenty-five studies that evaluated the effectiveness of POs in reducing recidivism in domestic violence met the eligibility criteria. Meta-analyses of weighted means of violation in the studies were conducted. Violation rates were found to be higher for victim reports compared with police reports. Violation rates were reduced when POs used in combination with arrests. PO violation rates were lower among perpetrators without histories of arrest for committing violence, perpetrators not engaging in stalking, and where couples have had medium to high incomes. There is no consensus among the studies about what the most appropriate methodology is to measure PO effectiveness. Future research should establish a more unified approach to evaluating the effectiveness and violations of POs.

Tags

Sample Definition And Size

The study is a systematic review and meta-analysis that evaluated 25 studies assessing the effectiveness of protection orders (POs) in reducing recidivism in domestic violence cases. The included studies varied in design and quality, with most at high risk of bias.

Study Type

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Conflicts Of Interest

The authors did not declare any conflicts of interest in the study.

Results Summary

The meta-analysis found that violation rates were higher in victim reports compared to police reports. Violation rates decreased when POs were used in combination with arrests. Lower violation rates were observed among perpetrators without prior arrest histories for violence, those not engaging in stalking behaviors, and couples with medium to high incomes. The study highlighted the lack of consensus on the most appropriate methodology for measuring PO effectiveness and called for a unified approach in future research.

Referenced In

RC Yu
a year ago
Staying Safe From Stalking - What Works?

Do protection orders (PO) work?

This meta-analysis suggests that POs aren't enough to keep victims safe – in cases of domestic violence that involve stalking. And so POs must be combined with other interventions.

The meta-analysis examines whether protection orders (PO) are effective in reducing domestic violence. Stalking comes in, as some domestic violence cases involve stalking.

Overall, the analysis finds there is "emerging evidence" that POs reduce "subsequent violence to some extent". However, this is for domestic violence cases that don't involve stalking and a few other factors.

So what about domestic violence cases that do involve stalking? Doesn't look promising. The analysis reports:

"All five studies [included in the meta-analysis] investigating stalking reported stalking to be a significant predictive factor for ongoing PO violations and increased physical, psychological, and sexual violence to victims, as well as poorer mental health and a lower sense of safety."

Why? Potentially because stalking is harder to prove and is taken less urgently by authorities.

The analysis concludes:

"effectiveness of POs [for stalking victims] may only be achieved ... when POs are combined with community-based interventions that offer further education, support, and resources to victims together with greater surveillance of offenders."

A bit on the meta-analysis's methodology:

  • The analyses include 25 studies, covering 31,586 participants.

  • All studies were US-based, except 1 study (Sweden).

  • Most victims in the studies were female, while most offenders were male.

  • Of the 25 studies: "19 were case series, 3 used a case control study design, 2 were retrospective cohort studies, and 1 was a prospective cohort study."

Read Full Post
4
RC Yu
7 months ago
Evidence & Public Policy

Do protection orders (PO) work for stalking victims?

I worked on a campaign to enact stalking laws in Malaysia. A key thing we advocated for was creating protection orders (or restraining orders).

This seem a logical "good practice", but what does the research say?

What I found

Well, the first thing I found: there doesn't seem to be much evidence available. This is understandable – as you can imagine, it's hard to conduct experiments to test protection orders.

I did find this meta-analysis, that suggests POs but aren't enough to keep victims safe – in cases of domestic violence that involve stalking.

This isn't to say that POs aren't useful. In practice, it means that POs must be combined with other interventions.

Key points about the meta-analysis

The meta-analysis examines whether protection orders (PO) are effective in reducing domestic violence. Stalking comes in, as some domestic violence cases involve stalking.

Overall, the analysis finds there is "emerging evidence" that POs reduce "subsequent violence to some extent". However, this is for domestic violence cases that don't involve stalking and a few other factors.

So what about domestic violence cases that do involve stalking? Doesn't look promising. The analysis reports:

"All five studies [included in the meta-analysis] investigating stalking reported stalking to be a significant predictive factor for ongoing PO violations and increased physical, psychological, and sexual violence to victims, as well as poorer mental health and a lower sense of safety."

Why? Potentially because stalking is harder to prove and is taken less urgently by authorities.

The analysis concludes:

"effectiveness of POs [for stalking victims] may only be achieved ... when POs are combined with community-based interventions that offer further education, support, and resources to victims together with greater surveillance of offenders."

A bit on the meta-analysis's methodology:

  • The analyses include 25 studies, covering 31,586 participants.

  • All studies were US-based, except 1 study (Sweden).

  • Most victims in the studies were female, while most offenders were male.

  • Of the 25 studies: "19 were case series, 3 used a case control study design, 2 were retrospective cohort studies, and 1 was a prospective cohort study."

Read Full Post
0