Views of nurses and midwives working in primary healthcare services on intimate partner violence against women.

In this study, an assessment phase is undertaken to determine intimate partner violence (IPV) prevalence. An anonymous survey is followed by a chart review documenting identification of IPV. Two methods are attempted to increase assessment/documentation of IPV: a physician educational intervention and a nursing routine inquiry intervention in one quadrant of the practice. The IPV physician educational intervention includes didactic sessions, an IPV counselor, and resource information. The routine inquiry intervention involves nurses screening female patients for IPV at check-in. IPV is found to be prevalent in a general medicine clinic. An enhanced educational intervention does not increase IPV documentation. A routine inquiry intervention significantly increases documentation of lifetime IPV but does not impact current IPV identification.

Medical provider versus social worker screening to detect interpersonal violence

Introduction: Intimate partner violence has been recognised globally as a human rights violation. It is universally under-diagnosed and the institution of timeous multi-faceted interventions has been noted to benefit intimate partner violence victims. Currently the concept of using a screening tool to detect intimate partner violence has not been widely explored in a primary healthcare setting in South Africa, and for this reason the current study was undertaken. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine the operating characteristics of a two-question screening tool for intimate partner violence (Women Abuse Screening Tool–short); and (2) to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence among women attending an outpatient department, using a validated questionnaire (Women Abuse Screening Tool). Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted prospectively at the outpatient department of a primary care hospital, with systematic sampling of one in eight women over a period of three months. Participants were asked about their experience of intimate partner violence during the past 12 months. The Women Abuse Screening Tool–short was used to screen patients for intimate partner violence. To verify the result of the screening, women were also asked the remaining questions from the full Women Abuse Screening Tool. Results: Data were collected from 400 participants, with a response rate of 99.3%. Based on the results for the Women Abuse Screening Tool, the prevalence of intimate partner violence in the sample was 32%. The Women Abuse Screening Tool–short was shown to have a sensitivity of 45.2% and specificity of 98%. Conclusion: With its high prevalence, intimate partner violence is a health problem at this facility. The Women Abuse Screening Tool–short lacks sufficient sensitivity and therefore is not an ideal screening tool for this primary care ambulatory setting. The low sensitivity can be attributed to the participants’ understanding of the screening questions, which utilise Eurocentric definitions of intimate partner violence. Improvement in the sensitivity of the Women Abuse Screening Tool–short in this setting may be achieved by lowering the threshold for a positive result.

Background:Intimate partner violence in its various forms increases HIV exposure infemale victims and potentially jeopardizes the HIV treatment cascade, forinstance, by impeding engagement in and adherence to care. Elevated rates ofHIV and intimate partner violence are reported in Central Africa. Evidenceon the effect of intimate partner violence on antiviral therapy interruptionis lacking in Cameroon, where only 330,000 women live with HIV and only 19%of HIV-positive people are virally suppressed. This study aimed to assessthe prevalence and factors of intimate partner violence against HIV-positivewomen and its relationship with antiretroviral therapy interruption⩾1 month.Methods:The EVOLCam cross-sectional survey was conducted in 19 hospitals in theCenter and Littoral regions. The study sample comprised antiviraltherapy–treated women declaring at least one sexual partner in the previousyear. Scores of recent emotional, physical, extreme physical and sexualintimate partner violence were built using principal component analysis andcategorized under no, occasional or frequent intimate partner violence.Multivariate logistic analyses were performed to investigate therelationship between intimate partner violence and recent antiretroviraltherapy interruption ⩾1 month, and associated factors.Results:Among the 894 analyzed women, the prevalence of intimate partner violence was29% (emotional), 22% (physical), 13% (extreme physical) and 18% (sexual).Frequent physical intimate partner violence was a significant risk factor ofantiretroviral therapy interruption ⩾1 month (adjusted odds ratio = 2.42(95% confidence interval = 1.00; 5.87)). It was also associated withHIV-related stigma (2.53 (1.58; 4.02)), living with a main partner (2.03(1.20; 3.44) and non-defensive violence against this partner (5.75 (3.53;9.36)).Conclusion:Intimate partner violence is a potential barrier to antiviral therapycontinuity and aggravates vulnerability of Cameroonian HIV-positive women.The prevention and detection of intimate partner violence by HIV servicesmight help to reach the last “90” of the 90-90-90 targets.

Background: Health care providers play a vital role in the detection of intimate partner violence among their patients. Despite the recommendations for routine intimate partner violence screening in various medical settings, health care providers do not routinely screen for intimate partner violence. The authors wanted to identify barriers to intimate partner violence screening and improve the understanding of intimate partner violence screening barriers among different health care providers. Methods: The authors conducted a systematic review to examine health care providers' perceived barriers to screening for intimate partner violence. By grouping the studies into two time periods, based on date of publication, they examined differences in the reported barriers to intimate partner violence screening over time. Results: The authors included a total of 22 studies in this review from all examined sources. Five categories of intimate partner violence screening barriers were identified: personal barriers, resource barriers, perceptions and attitudes, fears, and patient-related barriers. The most frequently reported barriers included personal discomfort with the issue, lack of knowledge, and time constraints. Provider-related barriers were reported more often than patient-related barriers. Conclusions: Barriers to screening for intimate partner violence are numerous among health care providers of various medical specialties. Increased education and training regarding intimate partner violence is necessary to address perceptions and attitudes to remove barriers that hinder intimate partner violence screening by health care providers.

Introduction: Intimate partner violence has been recognised globally as a human rights violation. It is universally under-diagnosed and the institution of timeous multi-faceted interventions has been noted to benefit intimate partner violence victims. Currently the concept of using a screening tool to detect intimate partner violence has not been widely explored in a primary healthcare setting in South Africa, and for this reason the current study was undertaken. The objectives of this study were: (1) to determine the operating characteristics of a two-question screening tool for intimate partner violence (Women Abuse Screening Tool–short); and (2) to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence among women attending an outpatient department, using a validated questionnaire (Women Abuse Screening Tool).Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted prospectively at the outpatient department of a primary care hospital, with systematic sampling of one in eight women over a period of three months. Pa...

Health care providers can play an important role in detection of intimate partner violence within health services but barriers exist. This study aimed to determine the barriers that health care providers in Fayoum, Egypt, consider prevent them from screening for intimate partner violence. This was a cross-sectional study between June 2018 and January 2019. The sample was health care providers (doctors, nurses, social workers and community workers) selected from government primary care centres in all seven districts of Fayoum. A validated Arabic version of the Domestic Violence Health Care Provider Survey was used to collect data. A total of 385 health care providers (92.7% women) agreed to participate (78.6% response rate). Just over half of the participants did not have access to social workers or community workers or strategies to help victims of intimate partner violence. None had received training on screening for domestic violence. More than half (59.7%) thought that investigating the cause of intimate partner violence was not part of medical practice. Sex was significantly associated with perceived self-efficacy, while age and occupation were significantly associated with referral management and health providers' attitude. Primary health care providers perceived many barriers to screening for intimate partner violence. Training on screening for and managing intimate partner violence should be part of the professional development for all health care providers. An effective referral system is needed that ensures comprehensive services for victims.

Intimate partner violence is a public health problem with human and economic costs. Although there is a substantial body of literature regarding women’s experiences in abusive intimate relationships, information about this kind of violence in the Chinese context is scarce. A review of the research on intimate partner violence in Chinese obstetric/gynecology patients has found 22 published papers representing 15 research studies conducted in Mainland China or Hong Kong. The majority of the studies focus on the prevalence of, and risk factors for, intimate partner violence in this group of women. Among the studies, variations in design, sample, definition of intimate partner violence and range of questions asked were noted. As no standardized instruments were used for the detection of intimate partner violence, a range of prevalence rates (e.g., 3.6–16.8% during pregnancy) and types of violence were reported, and it was difficult to draw meaningful comparisons across the studies. Despite the limitations, mu...

Given controversy about whether mediation is a safe option for parties with a history of intimate partner violence (IPV), there is agreement that staff should conduct systematic IPV screening prior to conducting family mediation sessions; yet, measures to do so are limited and new. The present study is a randomized controlled trial comparing use of a standardized, behaviorally specific screen (Mediator’s Assessment of Safety Issues and Concerns, MASIC) to a less specific mediation clinic IPV screen (Multi-Door screen) for rates of IPV detection. We also examined rates of recommendation to joint mediation resulting from use of the 2 screens. The sample was 741 divorcing or never married parties seeking mediation at the D.C. Superior Court’s Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division. Results indicated that parties were at greater odds of reporting IPV and IPV-related risk factors (i.e., injury, fear) on the MASIC compared with the Multi-Door screen. However, overall, neither screen was more likely than the other to lead to a case not being recommended for joint mediation. Regardless of screen, cases identified as higher risk were less likely to be recommended for joint mediation, and relative to the Multi-Door screen, the MASIC identified more high risk cases. Thus, a greater percentage of high risk cases were not recommended for joint mediation when the MASIC was used. In exploratory analyses, findings suggest that type of IPV behavior reported, level of IPV and abuse victimization, and the recency of such behaviors significantly impact recommendation decisions.

“Between me and the computer”: Increased detection of intimate partner violence using a computer questionnaire

Percepción y etiquetado de la experiencia violenta en las relaciones de noviazgo juvenil

Violence against women in the perinatal period is common and leads to negative health outcomes for women and infants. This case presentation demonstrates the value of home visit interventions and nursing implications for abused pregnant woman. A single case study was utilized in this research. The only participant in this study was Canan K.*, a 20 year-old pregnant living in Izmir, Turkey. Home visiting interventions addressing intimate partner violence in perinatal period have been effective in minimizing intimate partner violence and improving outcomes. In this case, the nursing educators and primary health care nurse served as an advocate for the abused woman, supporting her in her decision-making and providing necessary resources and referrals.

This study analysed the capacity of emergency physicians and nurses working in the city of Granada (Spain) to respond to intimate partner violence (IPV) against women, and the mediating role of certain factors and opinions towards certain sexist myths in the detection of cases. This is a cross-sectional study employing the physician readiness to manage intimate partner violence survey (PREMIS) between October 2020 and January 2021, with 164 surveys analysed. Descriptive and analytical statistics were applied, designing three multivariate regression models by considering opinions about different sexist myths. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were considered for the detection of cases. In the past six months, 34.8% of professionals reported that they had identified some cases of IPV, particularly physicians (OR = 2.47, 95% CI = 1.14–5.16; OR = 2.65, 95% CI = 1.26–5.56). Those who did not express opinions towards sexist myths related to the understanding of the victim or the consideration of alcohol/drug abuse as the main causes of violence and showed a greater probability of detecting a case (NS) (OR = 1.26 and OR = 1.65, respectively). In order to confirm the indicia found, further research is required, although there tends to be a common opinion towards the certain sexual myth of emergency department professionals not having an influence on IPV against women.

Influence of educational intervention on nurse-midwives’ knowledge and management practices of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) in healthcare Facilities in Ekiti-State, Nigeria

Update on the Role of Imaging in Detection of Intimate Partner Violence