This scoping review explores the breadth and depth to which Domestic Violence Intervention Programs (DVIPs) in the United States and globally: (a) incorporate components that address the relationship between intimate partner violence (IPV) and social injustice, racism, economic inequality, and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs); (b) use restorative (RJ)/transformative justice (TJ) practices, individualized case management, partnerships with social justice actors, and strengths-based parenting training in current programming; and (c) measure effectiveness. In 2021, we searched 12 academic databases using a combination of search terms and Medical Subject Headings. In all, 27 articles that discussed at least one key concept relative to DVIP curricula were included in the final review. Findings suggest that very few DVIPs address ACEs and/or the relationship between structural violence, social inequality, and IPV perpetration. Even fewer programs use restorative practices including RJ or TJ. Furthermore, DVIPs use inconsistent methods and measures to evaluate effectiveness. To respond to IPV perpetration more effectively and create lasting change, DVIPs must adopt evidence-informed approaches that prioritize social and structural determinants of violence, trauma-informed care, and restoration.

中文翻译：

---

家庭暴力干预计划替代方法的采用和衡量：范围界定审查

本范围审查探讨了美国和全球家庭暴力干预计划 (DVIP) 的广度和深度：(a) 纳入解决亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 与社会不公正、种族主义、经济不平等和不良童年经历（ACE）； (b) 在当前的规划中采用恢复性（RJ）/变革性司法（TJ）做法、个性化案件管理、与社会正义行为者的伙伴关系以及基于优势的育儿培训； (c) 衡量有效性。 2021 年，我们结合搜索词和医学主题词检索了 12 个学术数据库。最终评审中总共纳入了 27 篇文章，这些文章至少讨论了一个与 DVIP 课程相关的关键概念。调查结果表明，很少有 DVIP 涉及 ACE 和/或结构性暴力、社会不平等和 IPV 犯罪之间的关系。使用 RJ 或 TJ 等恢复性实践的项目就更少了。此外，DVIP 使用不一致的方法和措施来评估有效性。为了更有效地应对 IPV 犯罪并创造持久的变革，DVIP 必须采用以证据为依据的方法，优先考虑暴力、创伤知情护理和恢复的社会和结构决定因素。