Context: Although partner violence screening has been endorsed by many health organizations, there is insufficient evidence that it has beneficial health outcomes.
Objective: To determine the effect of computerized screening for partner violence plus provision of a partner violence resource list vs provision of a partner violence list only on women's health in primary care settings, compared with a control group.
Design, Setting, And Participants: A 3-group blinded randomized controlled trial at 10 primary health care centers in Cook County, Illinois. Participants were enrolled from May 2009-April 2010 and reinterviewed 1 year (range, 48-56 weeks) later. Participants were English- or Spanish-speaking women meeting specific inclusion criteria and seeking clinical services at study sites. Of 3537 women approached, 2727 were eligible, 2708 were randomized (99%), and 2364 (87%) were recontacted 1 year later. Mean age of participants was 39 years. Participants were predominantly non-Latina African American (55%) or Latina (37%), had a high school education or less (57%), and were uninsured (57%).
Intervention: Randomization into 3 intervention groups: (1) partner violence screen (using the Partner Violence Screen instrument) plus a list of local partner violence resources if screening was positive (n = 909); (2) partner violence resource list only without screen (n = 893); and (3) no-screen, no-partner violence list control group (n=898).
Main Outcome Measures: Quality of life (QOL, physical and mental health components) was the primary outcome, measured on the 12-item Short Form (scale range 0-100, mean of 50 for US population).
Results: At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the QOL physical health component between the screen plus partner violence resource list group (n = 801; mean score, 46.8; 95% CI, 46.1-47.4), the partner violence resource list only group (n = 772; mean score, 46.4; 95% CI, 45.8-47.1), and the control group (n = 791; mean score, 47.2; 95% CI, 46.5-47.8), or in the mental health component (screen plus partner violence resource list group [mean score, 48.3; 95% CI, 47.5-49.1], the partner violence resource list only group [mean score, 48.0; 95% CI, 47.2-48.9], and the control group [mean score, 47.8; 95% CI, 47.0-48.6]). There were also no differences between groups in days unable to work or complete housework; number of hospitalizations, emergency department, or ambulatory care visits; proportion who contacted a partner violence agency; or recurrence of partner violence.
Conclusions: Among women receiving care in primary care clinics, providing a partner violence resource list with or without screening did not result in improved health.
Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00526994.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4689430 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.6434 | DOI Listing |
Curr Pain Headache Rep
January 2025
Department of Neurology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York Presbyterian, 525 East 68th St, RM F610, New York, NY, USA.
Purposeof Review: In this article, we explore the current literature on traumatic brain injury (TBI) in survivors of intimate partner violence (IPV) and evaluate the barriers to studying this vulnerable population.
Recent Findings: Research on TBI and IPV is limited by multiple factors including mistrust of the healthcare system by survivors, lack of awareness by community advocates, and insufficient funding by public entities. As such, most investigations are small population, retrospective, and qualitative.
Inj Prev
January 2025
Orthopaedic Surgery, Riley Hospital for Children at Indiana University Health, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Background: Emergency departments are on the front lines of non-fatal self-harm injury (SHI). This study identifies patterns in patients presenting to emergency departments with SHI compared with patients presenting with assault and intimate partner violence.
Methods: Using the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System All Injury Program database, we analyzed SHI cases in the emergency department from 2005 to 2021 and examined demographic characteristics, injury mechanism and anatomic location, emergency department disposition and temporal patterns relative to cases involving assault and intimate partner violence.
JMIR Form Res
January 2025
UNICEF Jamaica, Kingston, Jamaica.
Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and violence against children are global issues with severe consequences. Intersections shared by the 2 forms of violence have led to calls for joint programming efforts to prevent both IPV and violence against children. Parenting programs have been identified as a key entry point for addressing multiple forms of family violence.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFPLOS Glob Public Health
January 2025
African Population and Health Research Center, Nairobi, Kenya.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a global issue with several social and health consequences. Global estimates indicate that one-third of women have experienced lifetime IPV. In 2013, sub-Saharan Africa recorded the highest rates of IPV.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Soc Work Educ
January 2024
University of Texas-Arlington College of Nursing and Health Innovation, Arlington, TX, USA.
The healthcare system is often the point where intimate partner violence (IPV) can be identified and where intervention strategies are initiated. Healthcare workers often operate in silos; therefore, timely and appropriate intervention depends on effective interdisciplinary communication and teamwork. Interprofessional education initiatives are one method for promoting interdisciplinary cooperation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!