Method

This integrative literature review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009). In May 2023, two independent reviewers searched the literature through the following databases: Web of Science, American Psychological Association Database (PsycINFO), PubMed, LILACS, and SciELO. The search strategy used the following descriptors: (psychotherapy OR therapy OR “psychological counseling”) AND (“intimate partner violence” OR “gender violence” OR “violence against wom*”) NOT couple). Searches were conducted in English.

The article selection process followed predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Eligible studies were empirical articles addressing psychotherapy for women experiencing IPV, written in English, Portuguese, or Spanish, and published from 2018 to 2023. Exclusion criteria included book chapters, master’s theses or doctoral dissertations, studies unrelated to the research topic—such as psychotherapy for male perpetrators, couples, or family members—and empirical articles focusing on sexually transmitted infections or duplicates found across databases.

Figure 1 shows a flowchart describing the article search and selection process. The initial search retrieved 133 articles: 48 from Web of Science, 50 from PsycINFO, 35 from PubMed, and none from the Regional Portal of the Virtual Health Library or LILACS. Based on the title screening, 55 duplicates and 45 other articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria, including: treatment focused on men (n = 5), couples or families (n = 6), review articles (n = 3), correlational studies (n = 5), studies addressing diagnosis or medication for sexually transmitted infections (n = 9), research proposals (n = 1), and prevalence studies on violence (n = 15). Next, the abstracts of 33 articles were reviewed, and 12 were excluded for being review articles (n = 2), focused on men (n = 3), book chapters (n = 2), research proposals (n = 1), focused on the psychologist’s perspective (n = 1), or graduate theses/dissertations (n = 3). After this step, 21 full-text articles were read, and four were excluded: two for being theoretical papers, one for being a correlational study, and one for addressing a different type of treatment. As a result, 17 articles met all inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The complete search and selection process is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Flowchart 

Results

The included studies were characterized through a descriptive analysis that identified the year and country of publication, the study objectives, the methodology used, and the participants involved. This information is presented in Table 1.

Considering the last five years, most studies was published in 2021 (n = 4) and 2022 (n = 5). Although studies were conducted in various countries, the United States stood out, and English was the predominant language. Notably, studies were also identified in low-income countries, such as Brazil (Gross et al., 2023) and Colombia (^{Naismith et al., 2021}). Regarding the conceptualization of intimate partner violence, no consensus was found: 10 articles presented differing definitions, and 7 provided no definition at all. In terms of study design, the predominant study design was randomized clinical trials (n = 7), followed by single-case or multiple-case studies (n = 5), quasi-experimental studies (n = 5), quasi-experimental studies with pre- and post-test design (n = 5), and one qualitative study.

Despite the methodological variation, the studies consistently reported a reduction in symptoms assessed after participation in the interventions, as well as high satisfaction with the intervention proposals.

In addition to the description of the studies, and based on their stated objectives, Table 2 was created to present the characteristics of the interventions investigated in the 17 empirical studies. A variety of intervention approaches was observed in terms of both their specific goals and the theoretical frameworks guiding psychological care for women experiencing intimate partner violence. Notably, most interventions were grounded in second- and third-wave cognitive-behavioral theory. Group-based interventions were more common than individual ones, and the number of sessions ranged from 1 to 16.

Discussion

The topic of intimate partner violence requires constant attention and ongoing updates (Miranda & Preuss, 2020; Oliveira & Silva, 2021; Zanchetta et al., 2020). Recent studies have increasingly focused on the intersection of IPV, psychotherapy, and interventions implemented within healthcare and support services (Garcia & Silva, 2018; ^{Mascarenhas et al., 2020}; Santos & Monteiro, 2018).

IPV is recognized as a public health issue (^{World Health Organization [WHO], 2019}); therefore, professionals must have access to effective prevention and treatment strategies to support women experiencing it. Psychotherapy, as a psychological intervention, is defined by the APA (2021) as a process in which the therapist helps the patient achieve emotional relief, solve specific problems, or modify their way of thinking, feeling, and behaving.

Given the complexity of IPV, it is recommended that psychotherapy be grounded in evidence-based practices, thereby ensuring the application of techniques and procedures scientifically validated for assessment and intervention (Berg, 2019; CFP, 2013). However, an analysis of the studies included in this review shows that, although all of them describe the topics addressed in the interventions, only a few (^{Andersson et al., 2021}; ^{Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2022a}; ^{Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2022b}; ^{Naismith, Ripoli, & Pardo, 2021}; ^{Newlands & Benuto, 2021}; ^{Nikparvar et al., 2023}) provide step-by-step descriptions. This lack of detail may hinder professionals’ ability to implement scientifically grounded practices, as they may have access to the themes and techniques used but not to the structure of the interventions—thus distancing practice from an evidence-based framework.

Among the psychotherapeutic approaches identified, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) and Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT) stood out as the theoretical foundations for most of the interventions described in the studies (^{Allard et al., 2018}; ^{Andersson et al., 2021}; Curia et al., 2023; ^{Galovski et al., 2022}; ^{Jackson et al., 2020}; ^{Johnson et al., 2020}; ^{Orang et al., 2018}). One possible explanation for their frequent use is the theoretical emphasis on changing trauma-related cognitions and reducing associated symptoms (^{Habigzang, Petersen, & Maciel, 2019}). Third-wave CBT approaches were also prominent in this review (^{Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2022a}; ^{Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2022b}; ^{Naismith, Ripoll, & Pardo, 2021}; ^{Nikparvar et al., 2023}; ^{Newlands & Benuto, 2021}; ^{Vaca-Ferrer, Ferro-Garcia, & Valero-Aguayo, 2020}), including Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT), and Compassion-Focused Therapy (CFT). These approaches may have gained visibility due to their growing application across diverse populations and their emphasis on behavioral function—whether adaptive or maladaptive—in specific contexts. They also share a transdiagnostic perspective that targets core change processes such as emotion regulation, acceptance, and training in present-moment awareness (^{Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 2021}).

This perspective also includes the work of ^{Kelly and Garland (2016)}, who sought to reduce posttraumatic stress symptoms in women with a history of violence through a mindfulness-based intervention. Although the intervention did not aim to access traumatic memories directly, the authors emphasized the benefits gained through the integration of meditation practices with psychoeducation on trauma and violence, as well as self-regulation skills.

A case study also implemented a mindfulness-based intervention involving present-moment awareness meditations, acceptance of thoughts and emotions, and the regulation of intense affect. The results indicated reductions in the patient’s levels of anxiety and depressive symptoms (^{Dantas, 2020}). Both studies highlight the importance of incorporating psychoeducation on violence into intervention programs, along with mindfulness exercises, acceptance, and a nonjudgmental attitude toward one’s experiences (^{Dantas, 2020}; ^{Kelly & Garland, 2016}).

Two studies stand out for incorporating religion and art—specifically, testimonial therapy and art therapy (^{Lakshmin et al., 2018}; ^{Skop et al., 2022})—which differ from the more commonly recognized interventions in the IPV context. In the case of testimonial therapy, this raises concerns about integrating psychotherapy and religion, particularly since religion is linked to personal beliefs and, in many cases, supports the preservation of traditional family structures, which may contribute to perpetuating the cycle of violence (^{Análio, 2021}). Notably, Article 2 of Principle V of the Code of Ethics for Psychologists in Brazil stipulates that professionals must not induce religious beliefs, among others, in the course of their work, which warrants special attention (^{Conselho Federal de Psicologia, 2005}).

The other study addressed group art therapy as a therapeutic resource facilitated by a team composed of social workers, community counselors, and a registered art therapist. This approach has been recognized as a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practice within Brazil’s Unified Health System (SUS) and, therefore, requires further research—such as the study analyzed here—to evaluate its effectiveness across different populations (^{Paganotto, 2018}).

Additionally, group-based interventions were more prevalent in the studies, although individual sessions were also considered. While the included articles primarily focused on intervention outcomes rather than the therapeutic process itself, the potential role of group process variables and technical elements in fostering therapeutic change should be acknowledged. Characteristics inherent to group therapy—such as universality—can contribute to a sense of belonging and emotional relief, given that participants often share common experiences of violence. The concept of group homogeneity is also relevant as it relates to group cohesion, interpersonal learning, observational processes, shared dialogue, collective listening, and the opportunity to feel a sense of inclusion (^{D’Affonseca & Williams, 2017}; ^{Matos et al., 2012}).

Regarding outcomes, all studies included in this review reported improvements in the variables they assessed. Some studies presented specific measurable outcomes, such as perceived reductions in PTSD symptoms (^{Allard et al., 2018}; ^{Andersson et al., 2021}; Curia et al., 2023; ^{Galovski et al., 2022}; ^{Johnson et al., 2020}; ^{Naismith, Ripoll & Pardo, 2021}; ^{Orang et al., 2018}), depression (^{Andersson et al., 2021}; Curia et al., 2023; ^{Johnson et al., 2020}; ^{Miguel & Pino-Juste, 2021}; ^{Naismith, Ripoll, & Pardo, 2021}; ^{Orang et al., 2018}), anxiety (Curia et al., 2023; ^{Jackson et al., 2020}; ^{Naismith, Ripoll, & Pardo, 2021}), suicidal ideation (Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2023a; ^{Vaca-Ferrer, Ferro-Garcia, & Valero-Aguayo, 2020}), and stress (^{Miguel & Pino-Juste, 2021}; ^{Nikparvar et al., 2023}; ^{Orang et al., 2018}), as well as increased life satisfaction (Curia et al., 2023; ^{Daneshvar, Shafiei, & Basharpoor, 2022b}). Other studies emphasized group-related factors, such as program feasibility and participant satisfaction (^{Garcia & Ferras, 2022}; ^{Newlands & Benuto, 2021}).

This study offers important contributions to the field of psychotherapy for women experiencing intimate partner violence while also acknowledging some limitations. The search was limited to five databases, and theses, dissertations, and book chapters were excluded. Only one Brazilian intervention study was identified (Curia et al., 2023), underscoring the scarcity of national research on this topic. This finding highlight both a social and scientific gap, given the alarming rates of violence against women in Brazil (^{Brasil, 2016}) contrasted with the limited number of scientific studies focused on psychological interventions for women experiencing IPV. Finally, no studies were identified that explored the psychotherapy process itself—that is, how the expected changes occur throughout treatment with this population.

Final Considerations

In light of this study’s objective to map the literature on psychotherapy for women experiencing intimate partner violence, the findings reveal a wide range of available interventions aimed not only at offering support but also at reducing symptoms associated with this experience. On the one hand, this diversity of treatment options may be beneficial for reaching populations that differ in terms of educational background, contextual factors, access to healthcare services, and intervention preferences. On the other hand, it raises the critical issue that, although most studies report pre- and post-test outcomes, few explore the psychotherapy process itself or identify the elements most relevant to therapeutic change.

We stress that professionals must be adequately trained to meet this population’s needs, provide qualified therapeutic support, and offer appropriate treatment for women experiencing IPV. Therefore, we deemed it essential that studies on this topic—as sources of knowledge—provide access not only to outcomes but also to the underlying processes that led to them.

Considering the high prevalence of IPV among women in Brazil, developing national studies is crucial to support evidence-based interventions in this context. We also emphasize the need for future research to go beyond outcome descriptions and include detailed step-by-step accounts of the interventions, ensuring their application is accessible to clinicians, researchers, and other professionals working with this population.