A Comparison of the Types of Screening Tool Administration Methods Used for the Detection of Intimate Partner Violence

Nasir Hussain · Sheila Sprague · Kim Madden · Farrah Naz Hussain · Bharadwaj Pindiprolu · Mohit Bhandari

96 citations0/0 files storedTrauma Violence & Abuse

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Intimate Partner and Family Violence Survey Methodology and Nonresponse Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with significant health consequences for victims, including acute/chronic pain, depression, trauma, suicide, death, as well as physical, emotional, and mental harms for families and children. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the rate of IPV disclosure in adult women (>18 years of age) with the use of three different screening tool administration methods: computer-assisted self-administered screen, self-administered written screen, and face-to-face interview screen. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and the Cochrane library databases. We identified 746 potentially relevant articles; however, only 6 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and included for analysis. No significant differences were observed when women were screened in face-to-face interviews or with a self-administered written screen (Odds of disclosing: 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [0.77, 1.35]); however, a computer-assisted self-administered screen was found to increase the odds of IPV disclosure by 37% in comparison to a face-to-face interview screen (odds ratio: 0.63, 95% CI: [0.31, 1.30]). Disclosure of IPV was also 23% higher for computer-assisted self-administered screen in comparison to self-administered written screen (Odds of disclosure: 1.23, 95% CI: [0.0.92, 1.64]). The results of this review suggest that computer-assisted self-administered screens leads to higher rates of IPV disclosure in comparison to both face-to-face interview and self-administered written screens.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 96 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools 2006Approaches to Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings 2004Screening Women and Elderly Adults for Family and Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2002“Between me and the computer”: Increased detection of intimate partner violence using a computer questionnaire 2005Intimate Partner Violence and Patient Screening across Medical Specialties 2007Intimate Partner Violence and Health Care Costs and Utilization for Children Living in the Home

Cited by

2017Intimate partner violence and pregnancy: screening and intervention 2020Demographics and Fracture Patterns of Patients Presenting to US Emergency Departments for Intimate Partner Violence 2022Technology-based and digital interventions for intimate partner violence: A systematic review and meta-analysis 2015Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment in the U.S. Military 2018A randomized controlled trial of a computer-based brief intervention for victimized perinatal women seeking mental health treatment 2022Transforming health settings to address gender‐based violence in Australia

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.