Background: Dating violence (DV) is a serious problem with devastating consequences. Often, research on DV has focused on two distinct groups: victims and perpetrators. However, there is growing evidence for a victim–perpetrator overlap model, which posits that those involved in DV are more likely to take on both roles, rather than either role on its own. Purpose: We investigated the patterns of involvement in DV among those who identified themselves as victims or perpetrators in previous studies. Method: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis. A total of 371 variables related to participants’ previous and concurrent experiences of DV victimization or perpetration (202 variables related to victimization and 169 related to perpetration) were identified in 25 studies, which were found by systematically searching three databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and SCOPUS. Results: The majority of previous studies categorized study participants as either DV victims or perpetrators; however, those who identified themselves as either DV victims or DV perpetrators were more likely to assume the opposite role as well. Specifically, current DV perpetrators had a strong association with previous or concurrent victimization experiences, and current DV victims were similarly likely to have assumed the roles of both victim and perpetrator in their histories. Conclusion: Further efforts should be put into avoiding categorization of those involved in violence; rather, they should be regarded as a single group. Additionally, evidence-based interventions should be developed for this population to help break the cycle of violence.

Gender-based violence (GBV) is a pervasive public health issue that harms victims. Bystanders’ interventions are crucial in preventing the risks of GBV; however, numerous barriers impede their willingness and behaviors to intervene. As a part of efforts to thwart these barriers, this study used a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify such barriers and assess their impact on bystanders’ engagement to intervene. The researchers explored academic databases and included 38 studies in the analysis; we extracted and coded the identified barriers (e.g., lack of responsibility, rape myth) and allocated them to six domains: failure to notice, failure to perceive risk, failure to take responsibility for engaging, lack of bystander efficacy/competency, failure to take an action, and failure of previous intervention attempts. We calculated the overall and domain-specific effect sizes (ES) and performed moderator analysis. The overall ES of the barriers identified in the review were small but statistically significant. The most potent bystander intervention barrier domain was failed previous intervention attempts; the greatest specific barriers therein were negative emotions and feelings of uncertainty after engaging in bystander behaviors. University/college populations were more vulnerable to barriers to intervention than community members. Moreover, the barriers were more prohibitive in incidents of violence against women and sexual assaults than in intimate partner violence. Bystander-focused programs that address negative emotions and feelings arising from prior intervention experiences are needed to foster continued bystander engagement and assistance in GBV; moreover, tailored program content should also be provided for groups most vulnerable to intervention barriers.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex global problem that has serious health consequences for victims. Many intervention programs have been introduced for IPV, with various target populations, purposes, designs, and outcomes. However, a consensus has not been reached regarding which type of program has the greatest impact. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of existing interventions on IPV risk and to compare the effects of the interventions based on their purposes and designs. Method: A systematic review and meta-analytic method were utilized in this study. Through a rigorous database search, 13 randomized controlled trials that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were selected and included in the analysis. Results: The included interventions had a small effect size, which was statistically significant. The couple interventions aiming to reduce the risk of IPV perpetration and victimization simultaneously showed the greatest impact, compared to bystander interventions and interventions targeting either perpetrators or victims. The interventions aiming to reduce the risk of IPV perpetration showed a significant impact on changing gender equality-related knowledge and attitudes, and those aiming to reduce the risk of IPV victimization were effective in increasing knowledge and changing attitudes related to traditional norms, empowerment, and health conditions. The interventions targeting bystanders showed significant effects on increasing bystander-related attitudes and behaviors. Conclusion: Our findings provide strong evidence for future intervention programs for IPV. Long-term research to follow-up actual IPV reductions after interventions will be needed to confirm the findings of this study.