Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:01:10.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 October 2023

Jennifer J. Mootz*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, USA New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA
Molly Fennig
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, USA
Ali Giusto
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, USA New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA
Audrey Mumey
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, USA
Claire M. Greene
Affiliation:
Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA
Milton L. Wainberg
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, USA New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, USA
*
Corresponding author: Jennifer J. Mootz; Email: Jennifer.mootz@nyspi.columbia.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most family violence research has been conducted in high-income countries, although family violence rates are higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), and outcomes more severe. Given the strong associations of family violence with substance use and mental illness, the aim of this systematic review was to examine interventions that targeted familial violence and at least one other condition of substance use or mental illness to determine effective treatments in LMICs. We conducted a systematic review of interventions that addressed family violence and mental illness or substance use. A committee of three researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and conducted full-text eligibility assessments. Two researchers conducted a risk of bias assessment. Data were extracted using a structured spreadsheet and narratively synthesized. Our search identified 29 articles produced from 19 studies conducted in 13 LMICs. Most (n = 15) studies randomized to study condition. Lack of blinding was the most common threat. The external validity of studies was generally poor. Fourteen studies had a primary intervention target of family violence, mental health, substance use, economic improvement, or HIV. None of the studies showed improvements in all intervention areas. Child maltreatment was less likely to be addressed than intimate partner violence (IPV). Targeted interventions for substance and mental health mostly improved primary outcomes, although they were less effective in reducing IPV. Evidence-based treatments must be rigorously evaluated before innovations in implementation can occur. Interventions overwhelmingly addressed IPV victimization and should consider how to work with couples and include men and children.

Information

Type
Overview Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. PRISMA flow chart

Figure 1

Table 1. Quality assessment

Figure 2

Table 2. Summary of study intervention outcomes of interest

Figure 3

Table 3. Synthesis of study outcomes

Supplementary material: File

Mootz et al. supplementary material
Download undefined(File)
File 27.4 KB

Author comment: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R0/PR1

Comments

March 15, 2023

Dear Drs. Belkin, Bass, and Chibanda:

With pleasure, we submit our manuscript entitled “Interventions Addressing Family Violence and Mental Illness or Substance Use in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review” for consideration for publication in Global Mental Health.

Family violence has strong associations with substance use and mental illness. Yet, interventions that comprehensively address these related problems are lacking. Most family violence research has been conducted in high-income countries, although family violence rates are higher in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and outcomes more severe. To determine effective treatments in LMICs, we conducted a systematic review of interventions that addressed family violence and mental illness or substance use in LMICs, identifying 29 articles produced from 19 studies conducted in 13 LMICs. We found that none of the studies showed improvements in all intervention areas. Child maltreatment was less likely to be addressed than intimate partner violence (IPV). Targeted interventions for substance and mental health mostly improved primary outcomes, although they were less effective in reducing IPV. While advances have been made, this review shows that much work is needed to develop and rigorously evaluate evidence-based treatments before innovations in implementation or scale-up efforts for family violence interventions and related mental health and substance use problems can occur.

This material has not been published elsewhere and is not under review at another publication.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jennifer Mootz and Co-Authors

Review: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

I have no competing interests.

Comments

Overall, the authors are to be commended for a comprehensive review in an emerging area of intervention research. A few comments are offered to strengthen the manuscript.

1. The tables are difficult to comprehend and where possible, abbreviations should be removed replaced with full words. Alternative ideas would be for the first table on quality assessment to have green (yes), red (no), gray (unsure), yellow (partial) cell boxes rather than letters to quickly give the reader a sense of the strength of evidence. For the synthesis table, the target column is especially unclear and words should be used instead of letters and symbols as a reader should be able to understand the table quickly without needing to search for the legends. Additionally, the type column seems that primary and secondary (as full words) could be added to the outcome column as a descriptor and that column removed - this would allow for more space to be given to the target column. I would recommend the authors look at other systematic reviews for structure examples for this table.

2. The authors include allocation concealment and blinding participants and outcome assessment as part of the quality assessment which is fine. However, in practice, for these comprehensive, largely behavioral interventions, achieving this is very difficult. The authors should comment on this in the discussion rather than only implying studies are weak because of this. Additionally, a color coded table would more clearly indicate this is where all studies seem to have challenges at a quick glance by a reader.

3. The authors note a bidirectional relationship between mental health and family violence. There is limited mention of the importance of multiple time points of intervention follow-up for path analyses to unpack these relationships. Did any papers do this? What are the authors recommendations for this? If helpful, the authors should consider the inclusion of a diagram that illustrates multiple pathways between family violence and mental health.

4. Regarding mental health outcomes, could the authors add more in the discussion about whether these interventions prevent poor mental health or rather they ‘treat’ mental health symptoms or people already with specific diagnoses in the inclusion criteria of the interventions included? This would have implications for generalizability of the target population. For example, it is unclear if ‘most studies focused on reduction and measurement of depression symptoms’ means that people had depression or if these symptoms were just assessed in a general population.

5. For substance use, it is not clear that any intervention addressed substances outside of alcohol. If this is correct, the authors should describe the interventions as alcohol interventions rather than a more holistic substance use intervention.

6. The authors note limited studies on child maltreatment - what are the takeaways for children’s mental health? Do studies also measure this or only among adults? More analysis of this and recommendations in the discussion is warranted.

7. Please comment on the scalability, sustainability, and funding of these combined interventions in the analyses for stronger policy and practitioner recommendations.

Review: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for this article, it is very well presented, and addresses a very important topic. I believe the authors should be commended for a good review, I have a few small comments noted below, and I believe addressing these will make for an excellent article worthy of publication.

My only content suggestion is the following: have you considered looking a the duration of interventions (both length of sessions and number of sessions) and effectiveness? Some research shows that very short interventions are often ineffective, and there may be a minimum amount of time that is needed for an intervention to be effective. I do not think it is essential to include this, but it did strike me that there would probably be an interesting comment to be made about this.

Consistency in language and terms – towards the beginning the authors use family violence, interpersonal violence, domestic violence – and they seem to be used inter-changeably. If you mean different things with the terms please define the difference or be consistent.

The authors usually use “mental health disorders” however occasionally you use “mental disorders”, which I believe can be perceived as derogatory language, I would suggest always using “Mental health disorders”

Introduction: “This is due in part to poverty which is pervasive in LMICs” Poverty is definitely one driver, but so is patriarchy or gendered norms – I think you should bring that in too, both the Jewkes and Gibbs papers discuss this aspect.

“Childhood abuse survivors or children who have witnessed IPV have shown to be more likely to perpetrate IPV themselves, placing their offspring at higher risk” they are also more likely to experience IPV, please add this.

Table 2 – I have table 1, but I do not see Table 2 – did I miss it or was it not uploaded?

Results:

“Both analyses found significant reductions of caregiver exposure to and conditions did not exist for parenting, family connectedness, conduct, or functional impairment” are there some words missing here?

Recommendation: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R0/PR4

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R1/PR6

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Thank you for addressing the comments. The tables in particular, are much easier to digest at first glance. I look forward to citing this paper in the future.

Recommendation: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R1/PR8

Comments

Thank you for the comprehensive responses to the reviewers' comments. Your publication is now acceptable for publication subject to some minor editorial work. Please consistently use “mental health conditions” instead of “mental illness” and “mental health disorders” etc. Please review the following sentence in the discussion so that it makes sense “ Future interventionists and researchers should examine downstream effects of reducing IPV and adult mental health and substance use on children”

Decision: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R1/PR9

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R2/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Recommendation: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Interventions addressing family violence and mental illness or substance use in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review — R2/PR12

Comments

No accompanying comment.