Project description:ContextAlthough partner violence screening has been endorsed by many health organizations, there is insufficient evidence that it has beneficial health outcomes.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsA 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%).InterventionRandomization 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 measuresQuality 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).ResultsAt 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.ConclusionsAmong women receiving care in primary care clinics, providing a partner violence resource list with or without screening did not result in improved health.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00526994.
Project description:Emergency department (ED) visits present an opportunity to deliver brief interventions (BIs) to reduce violence and alcohol misuse among urban adolescents at risk for future injury. Previous analyses demonstrated that a BI resulted in reductions in violence and alcohol consequences up to 6 months. This article describes findings examining the efficacy of BIs on peer violence and alcohol misuse at 12 months.Patients (14-18 years of age) at an ED reporting past year alcohol use and aggression were enrolled in the randomized control trial, which included computerized assessment, random assignment to control group or BI delivered by a computer or therapist assisted by a computer. The main outcome measures (at baseline and 12 months) included violence (peer aggression, peer victimization, violence-related consequences) and alcohol (alcohol misuse, binge drinking, alcohol-related consequences).A total of 3338 adolescents were screened (88% participation). Of those, 726 screened positive for violence and alcohol use and were randomly selected; 84% completed 12-month follow-up. In comparison with the control group, the therapist assisted by a computer group showed significant reductions in peer aggression (P < .01) and peer victimization (P < .05) at 12 months. BI and control groups did not differ on alcohol-related variables at 12 months.Evaluation of the SafERteens intervention 1 year after an ED visit provides support for the efficacy of computer-assisted therapist brief intervention for reducing peer violence.
Project description:ObjectivesThis was a 2-year follow-up study of a primary care-based counselling intervention (weave) for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). We aimed to assess whether differences in depression found at 12 months (lower depression for intervention than control participants) would be sustained at 24 months and differences in quality in life, general mental and physical health and IPV would emerge.DesignCluster randomised controlled trial. Researchers blinded to allocation. Unit of randomisation: family doctors.SettingFifty-two primary care clinics, Victoria, Australia.ParticipantsBaseline: 272 English-speaking, female patients (intervention n=137, doctors=35; control n=135, doctors=37), who screened positive for fear of partner in past 12 months. Twenty-four-month response rates: intervention 59% (81/137), control 63% (85/135).InterventionsIntervention doctors received training to deliver brief, woman-centred counselling. Intervention patients were invited to receive this counselling (uptake rate: 49%). Control doctors received standard IPV information; delivered usual care.Primary and secondary outcome measuresTwenty-four months primary outcomes: WHO Quality of Life-Bref dimensions, Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental health.Secondary outcomesSF-12 physical health and caseness for depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale), post-traumatic stress disorder (Check List-Civilian), IPV (Composite Abuse Scale), physical symptoms (≥6 in last month). Data collected through postal survey. Mixed-effects regressions adjusted for location (rural/urban) and clustering.ResultsNo differences detected between groups on quality of life (physical: 1.5, 95% CI -2.9 to 5.9; psychological: -0.2, 95% CI -4.8 to 4.4,; social: -1.4, 95% CI -8.2 to 5.4; environmental: -0.8, 95% CI -4.0 to 2.5), mental health status (-1.6, 95% CI -5.3 to 2.1) or secondary outcomes. Both groups improved on primary outcomes, IPV, anxiety.ConclusionsIntervention was no more effective than usual care in improving 2-year quality of life, mental and physical health and IPV, despite differences in depression at 12 months. Future refinement and testing of type, duration and intensity of primary care IPV interventions is needed.Trial registration numberACTRN12608000032358.
Project description:Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) and reproductive coercion impact women seeking care at family planning (FP) clinics. Interventions to facilitate patient-provider conversations about healthy relationships are needed. We sought to determine the added effect of providing psychoeducational messages to patients compared with tailored provider scripts alone on sexual and reproductive health outcomes at 4-6 months. Materials and Methods: We randomized participants to Trauma-Informed Personalized Scripts (TIPS)-Plus (provider scripts +patient messages) or TIPS-Basic (provider scripts only) at four FP clinics. Eligible patients included English-speaking females aged 16-29 years. Data were collected at initial visits (T1) and 4-6 months (T2) on IPV, reproductive coercion, fear, condom and other contraceptive use, self-efficacy, harm reduction behaviors, and knowledge/use of IPV-related services. We compared frequencies and summary scores between baseline and follow-up with McNemar's test of paired proportions and Signed Rank-Sum, respectively. We compared the difference in differences over time by treatment arm using two-sample t-tests, and used linear, logistic, and ordinal logistic regression to compare intervention effects at follow-up. Results: Two hundred forty patients participated (114 TIPS-Plus, 126 TIPS-Basic), 216 completed follow-up. We detected no differences in outcomes between treatment arms. Between T1 and T2, we observed overall reductions in mean summary scores for reproductive coercion (T1 = 0.08 ± 0.02, T2 = 0.02 ± 0.01, p = 0.028) and increases in contraceptive use (69.6%-87.9%, p < 0.001), long-acting reversible contraceptives (8.3%-20.8%, p < 0.001), and hidden methods (20%-38.5%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: We show no added benefit of patient-activation messages compared with provider scripts alone. Findings suggest potential utility of provider scripts in addressing reproductive coercion and contraceptive uptake (Trial Registration No. NCT02782728).
Project description:ImportanceThe practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well.ObjectiveTo determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023.ExposureMental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients.ResultsA total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, -7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, -7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for IPV.
Project description:Screening and response for intimate partner violence (IPV) is recommended for women in priority populations and is implemented in health services across diverse jurisdictions. Most women experiencing IPV strongly support screening, however this is untested with refugee women in resettlement contexts. Around one third of refugee women in Australia experience IPV and face multiple post-migration challenges. SAHAR (Safety and Health after Arrival) tested IPV screening using the ACTS tool, brief intervention, and referral with women accessing four settlement support services. Women attending sites during the study period were invited to participate in a three month follow up survey with participation by 321/375 women recruited (86%). Acceptability of IPV screening was assessed against (i) levels of comfort with the IPV screening questions and (ii) strength of agreement/disagreement with settlement services asking women about being frightened, controlled or hurt by their partners. Of participants who recalled the screening, 93% reported being very or moderately comfortable with being asked the questions (89% who had experienced IPV; 94% of those with no IPV identified). For all participants, 84% strongly or somewhat agreed with services asking the questions, with no significant difference in agreement between disclosing and non-disclosing groups. Those with no recall of the questions had lower overall agreement and higher disagreement than those who recalled the questions (88% and 10%). Acceptability was not associated with age, country of origin, household composition, time since arrival or number of prior service visits. Participants identified 'care shown by the worker', 'talking to someone in my own language', 'trust in the privacy of the service', and 'talking to a female worker' as the factors most important for encouraging discussion of IPV. High acceptance of IPV screening by refugee women supports consideration of implementation across settlement services, a key access point for refugee women with diverse needs.
Project description:ObjectivesEmergency Department (ED) screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) is typically nursing-initiated, often with visitors present. Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have seen both an increase in societal stress, a known exacerbator of IPV, and the implementation of visitor restriction policies. This combination presents the need for enhanced IPV screening and the opportunity to perform screening in a controlled, patient-only environment. Our goal was to evaluate the frequency of nurse-initiated screening for IPV prior to and during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the frequency of positive screens for IPV.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study evaluating all adults (age >18 years) presenting to a tertiary care center ED. Patients were identified as presenting prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (June 1, 2019 to August 31, 2019) and after the COVID-19 visitor restriction policies (June 1, 2020 to August 31, 2020). Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square and t-tests compared the demographic variables. Chi-square was used for a bivariate analysis of our primary outcomes (IPV screening performed and screening positive for IPV). Further analysis was done using a binary logistic regression model adjusting for the demographic characteristics.ResultsBoth the odds of nursing-initiated IPV screening and the odds of verbally screening positive for IPV significantly increased (OR 1.509, 95% CI 1.432-1.600) and (OR 1.375, 95% CI 1.126-1.681) respectively following the implementation of COVID-19 visitor restriction policies.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that nurse-initiated IPV screening should continue to be performed with the patient privately, even after COVID-19 related ED visitor restrictions are removed. These findings also support the hypothesis that the stress related to COVID-19 is contributing to a rise in IPV.
Project description:BackgroundOral cancer remains the commonest form of cancer and cancer-related deaths among Indian males due to popularity of avoidable risk factors such as tobacco and alcohol use. A workplace oral cancer screening and tobacco cessation study was commenced on World No Tobacco Day 2007 at a chemical industry in rural Maharashtra.AimsThe objectives were to screen the employees for oral neoplasia and to correlate it with their tobacco consumption pattern. In addition, the objective was to provide tobacco cessation services at the workplace.Materials and methodsThis is an interventional cohort study among 104 employees of a chemical industrial unit in rural Maharashtra. Naked eye examination of the oral cavity was performed for all employees by a doctor irrespective of the tobacco habits at the beginning and at the end of 1 year. In between, the tobacco users were regularly examined during each follow-up.Statistical analysis usedThrough personal interviews of the participants, data were manually recorded and were transferred to electronic data base. Data analysis was conducted in STATA™ 8.2 on intention to treat basis.Results and conclusionsAmong the 104 employees, 50 (48.08%) were current tobacco users at the beginning of the program. Oral precancers were seen exclusively among 20 (40%) tobacco users. After 1 year of workplace tobacco cessation intervention, 80% of oral precancers regressed. This shows that screening of the oral cavity at the workplace is effective when combined with tobacco cessation.
Project description:Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a significant public health issue, with a 25% lifetime prevalence. Screening for IPV in primary care is a recommended practice whose effectiveness is debated. To assess the effect of an electronic health record (EHR)-based multifactorial intervention screening on the detection of IPV risk in primary care practice. This cluster randomized clinical trial used a stepped-wedge design to assign 15 family medicine primary care clinics in the Medical University of South Carolina Health System in the Charleston region to 3 matched blocks from October 6, 2020, to March 31, 2023. All women aged 18 to 49 years who were seen in these clinics participated in this study. A noninterruptive EHR alert combined with confidential screening by computer questionnaire using the EHR platform followed by risk assessment and a decision support template. The main outcomes were the rate at which patients were screened for IPV across the clinics and the rate at which patients at risk for IPV were detected by screening procedures. The study clinics cared for 8895 unique patients (mean [SD] age, 34.6 [8.7] years; 1270 [14.3%] with Medicaid or Medicare and 7625 [85.7%] with private, military, or other insurance) over the study period eligible for the screening intervention. The intervention had significant effects on the overall rate of screening for IPV, increasing the rate of screening from 45.2% (10 268 of 22 730 patient visits) to 65.3% (22 303 of 34 157 patient visits) when the noninterruptive alert was active (relative risk, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.44-1.49]; P < .001). The confidential screening process was more effective than baseline nurse-led oral screening at identifying patients reporting past-year IPV (130 of 8895 patients [1.5%] vs 9 of 17 433 patients [0.1%]). The intervention was largely effective in increasing screening adherence and the positive detection rate of IPV in primary care. A highly private approach to screening for IPV in primary care may be necessary to achieve adequate detection rates while addressing potential safety issues of patients experiencing IPV. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT06284148.
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the long-term effect of a socially differentiated cardiac rehabilitation (CR) intervention tailored to reduce social inequalities in health regarding use of healthcare services in general practice and hospital among socially vulnerable patients admitted with first-episode myocardial infarction (MI).DesignA prospective cohort study with 10 years' follow-up.SettingDepartment of cardiology at a university hospital in Denmark between 2000 and 2004.ParticipantsPatients <70 years admitted with first-episode MI categorised as socially vulnerable (n=208) or non-socially vulnerable (n=171) based on educational level and social network.InterventionA socially differentiated CR intervention. The intervention consisted of standard CR and expanded CR with focus on cross-sectional collaboration.Main outcome measuresParticipation in annual chronic care consultations in general practice, contacts to general practice, all-cause hospitalisations and cardiovascular readmissions.ResultsAt 2-year and 5-year follow-up, socially vulnerable patients receiving expanded CR participated significantly more in annual chronic care consultations (p=0.02 and p<0.01) but at 10-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in annual chronic care consultations (p=0.13). At 10-year follow-up, socially vulnerable patients receiving standard CR had significantly more contacts to general practice (p=0.03). At 10-year follow-up, there were no significant differences in the proportion of socially vulnerable patients receiving expanded CR in the mean number of all-cause hospitalisations and cardiovascular readmissions (p>0.05).ConclusionsThe present study found no persistent association between the socially differentiated CR intervention and use of healthcare services in general practice and hospital in patients admitted with first-episode MI during a 10-year follow-up.