Systematic Review of Interventions for Latina Survivors of Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S

Background and Purpose: Interventions are essential to preventing and responding to intimate partner violence (IPV). Among Latina IPV survivors, integrating culturally relevant content and core components may be critical in providing effective services to prevent IPV and support Latinas’ healing process. However, there is a paucity of knowledge about IPV interventions for Latinas, their core components, and related efficacy. This review aims to systematically identify and synthesize information on IPV interventions for Latinas, focusing on design and delivery elements that move beyond language and assess whether and how the extant interventions address culture.

Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, eleven electronic databases were searched in 2021. Studies were included if they: 1) Focused on IPV programming with Latinas or mostly (≥ 75%) Latinas; 2) Reported quantitative findings assessing outcome measures; 3) Were published in peer-reviewed journals in English or Spanish; and 4) Were conducted in the United States (including Puerto Rico). Data were extracted to examine program modalities, core components, target population, sample characteristics, theoretical foundations, cultural components, and strengths and gaps of current interventions.

Results: 3,344 peer-reviewed papers were identified through the search (excluding duplicates). Twenty studies met the full-text review inclusion criteria. Five studies focused on prevention, with the remaining studies on intervention. Nine studies were randomized control trials, and two were quasi-experimental. Of the 20 studies, five targeted immigrant Latinas; one explicitly targeted heterosexual women, and none of the remaining studies reported on the sexual diversity of their participants. Sample sizes varied widely from 10 to 2,540 participants. Most of the studies (n=14) had samples of all or primarily Mexicans, and 10 developed their programming specifically for the Latinx community. A wide range of theories (e.g., empowerment, socio-ecological, medical care models) guided program development. The aims of the interventions also varied, with one study focusing on increasing ethnic pride. Half of the programs (n=10) were delivered in Spanish only; one of the studies was also available in a combination of English and Spanish. Studies included various cultural elements, with familismo, machismo, and marianismo being more commonly addressed. Two programs discussed acculturation, and one program addressed immigration issues. One study reported non-significant intervention effects over time.

Conclusions and Implications: This review yielded information on the potential benefits of including culturally relevant content and approaches in IPV programming with Latinas and suggests the need to continue exploring these constructs across settings and sub-Latina groups as well as to expand constructs to include structural issues Latinas may experience in the context of IPV (e.g., institutional discrimination, immigration concerns). Importantly, findings also suggest the need to attend to within-group differences among Latinas, avoiding a monolithic group treatment approach; despite great ethnic variation within the Latinx population, most studies only included women of Mexican origin. While studies consistently targeted women, none specifically reported the sexual and gender diversity of participants included, inhibiting our understanding of interventions that may work with the LGBTQIA+ Latina population. This review also highlights an urgency for programs to attend to Latinas’ specific linguistic needs (Spanglish and indigenous language).