Computer-based prevention of intimate partner violence in marriage

• Intimate partner violence is a common, costly societal problem; interventions designed to reduce it have had limited success.
• ePREP, a computer-based intervention, reduced physical-assault and psychological aggression among married couples.
• On average, a 90% reduction in physical aggression and a 0.18 standard deviation decrease in psychological aggression.
• These gains were maintained at a 1-year follow-up assessment.
• Flexible interventions, intelligently dosed, are more likely to reduce burden and improve psychosocial functioning.

ObjectiveIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a common, costly societal problem. Interventions designed to reduce IPV recidivism have had limited success but primary prevention efforts are likely to be more effective in reducing the occurrence of IPV. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a computer-based preventive intervention (ePREP) on IPV in a sample of married, community couples.MethodWe employed a randomized clinical trial design comparing ePREP to an active placebo control group. Using a community sample of 52 married couples (21% Black, 3% Asian, 65% White, 7% Latino, 4% Mixed/biracial) who had been married, on average, 4.3 years, we examined the impact ePREP on IPV as measured by self and partner reports of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. We assessed couples at baseline, six-weeks post-baseline, and one-year post-baseline. We used the Actor Partner Interdependence Model with treatment effects to analyze the obtained dyadic data.ResultsWe found that ePREP reduced physical and psychological aggression among married couples (on average across informants, a 90% reduction in expected counts of physical aggression, and a 0.18 standard deviation reduction in psychological aggression) and that these gains were maintained at a 1-year follow-up assessment.ConclusionsInterventions that can be delivered widely and at a low-cost will increase the likelihood of reaching those who will benefit most from receiving them. Implications for implementing flexible interventions and changing our approach to treatment delivery are discussed.