How far does screening women for domestic (partner) - NIHR Health ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

8 TABLE 1 Inclusion criteria for primary studies ordered by review questions Review methods Review questions b QI QII QIII QIV QV QVI QVII Inclusion criteria Participants Women aged over 15 years × Women that report a lifetime experience of partner violence × × Settings Health-care settings – no restrictions on geographical/national setting Primary studies conducted in services outside health-care systems to which referral can be made from a health-care setting × Study designs Randomised controlled studies, non-randomised parallel group studies, interrupted time series studies, before-and-after studiesa × × Cohort studies × × × Case–control studies × × × Cross-sectional studies × × × × Clusters of case studies × × × × × Prevalence studies × × × × × Qualitative designs × × × × × Questionnaire surveys × × × × × Studies where verbal interaction (researcher–participant) aids results’ formulation × × × × × Studies where abused women’s views discussed separately × × × × × × Studies evaluating a screening tool against a standard criterion × × × × × Economic evaluations of screening interventions × × × × × Aims of studies included Interventions aimed at reducing abuse or improving the health of the women × × × × Interventions aimed at training staff × × × × × × × Interventions aimed at providing more organisation/system resources × × × × × × × Studies determining effectiveness of screening interventions × × × × × × Studies determining prevalence of partner violence × × × × × ×
DOI: 10.3310/hta13160 Health Technology Assessment 2009; Vol. 13: No. 16 Review questions b QI QII QIII QIV QV QVI QVII Inclusion criteria Studies determining validity and reliability of screening × × × × × × Studies determining cost-effectiveness of screening × × × × × × Studies determining acceptability of screening to women × × × × Studies determining harms associated with screening × × × × × × Studies determining acceptability of screening to health professionals and public × × × × × × Included outcomes Incidence of abuse (physical, sexual, psychological, emotional, financial) × × × Physicalc and psychosociald health × × × Proxy measurese × × × × Measures of validity and reliability of screening tools × × × × × × Degree of acceptability of screening amongst women × × × × × × Degree of acceptability of screening to health professionals × × × × × × Cost of providing screening × × × × × × © 2009 Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO. All rights reserved. Changes in identification, information giving and referrals from screening × × × × × × Included reporting formats Studies published in peer-reviewed journals and in books by academic publishers Funder-published research reports Studies reported in European languagesf Reviews, from 1990, on the health impact of partner violence × × × × × × Studies, from 1995, reporting prevalence data for partner violence from the UK × × × × × × = inclusion criterion; × = not an inclusion criterion. a Either women in the ‘before’ group act as the comparison group (historical controls) or women receiving intervention act as their own controls. b QI: What is the prevalence of partner violence and its health consequences? QII: Are screening tools valid and reliable? QIII: Is screening for partner violence acceptable to women? QIV: Are interventions effective once partner violence is disclosed in a health-care setting? QV: Can mortality or morbidity be reduced following screening? QVI: Is a partner violence screening programme acceptable to health professionals and the public? QVII: Is screening for partner violence cost-effective? For QI, QII and QVII we only included quantitative data; for QIII, QIV, QV and QVI we included both qualitative and quantitative data. c Physical health includes deaths, physical injuries, including harm, chronic health disorders, sexual health, general measures of physical health. d Psychosocial health includes depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, self-efficacy, self-esteem, quality of life, perceived social support. e Proxy measures include socioeconomic measures (income, housing, employment), the use of safety behaviours, the use of refuges/shelters, the use of counselling, calls to police, police reports filed, protection orders sought, referral or information-giving by professionals. f We restricted our choice of language to European languages from Western Europe, North America and Australasia – i.e. locations considered to be culturally equivalent to the UK. 9
Page 1 and 2: How far does screening women for do
Page 3 and 4: How far does screening women for do
Page 5 and 6: DOI: 10.3310/hta13160 Health Techno
Page 11: DOI: 10.3310/hta13160 Health Techno
Page 14 and 15: xii Executive summary and quantitat
Page 17 and 18: Aims of the review This review has
Page 46 and 47: 30 Review Question II tools were us
Page 48 and 49: 32 Review Question II of controllin
Page 50 and 51: 34 Review Question II Table 6 Ranke
Page 52 and 53: 36 Review Question II Methodologica
Page 64 and 65: 48 Review Question IV access resour
Page 66 and 67: 50 Review Question IV woman’s nee
Page 68 and 69: 52 Review Question IV cognitive the
Page 70 and 71: 54 Review Question IV developing a
Page 72 and 73: 56 Review Question IV Sullivan and
Page 74 and 75:
58 Review Question IV the potential
Page 76 and 77:
60 Review Question V primary care c
Page 78 and 79:
62 Review Question V include incomp
Page 80 and 81:
64 Review Question VI preferred inc
Page 82 and 83:
66 Review Question VI Barnett 188 s
Page 84 and 85:
68 Review Question VI Discussion Th
Page 86 and 87:
70 Review Question VII would also b
Page 88 and 89:
72 Review Question VII transition p
Page 90 and 91:
74 Conclusions and implications for
Page 92 and 93:
76 Conclusions and implications for
Page 95:
DOI: 10.3310/hta13160 Health Techno
Page 98 and 99:
82 References project: details and
Page 100 and 101:
84 References of a managed care org
Page 102 and 103:
86 References 126. Sullivan CM, Byb
Page 104 and 105:
88 References 175. Edin KE, Högber
Page 106 and 107:
90 References 226. Parker B, McFarl
Page 108 and 109:
92 References report from the Briti
Page 110 and 111:
94 References 328. Campbell DW, Cam
Page 112 and 113:
96 References 381. Kramer A, Lorenz
Page 114 and 115:
98 References violence. J Obstet Gy
Page 116 and 117:
100 References to the mental health
Page 118 and 119:
102 References 541. Groves B. Menta
Page 120 and 121:
104 References residents about dome
Page 122 and 123:
106 References 645. Harris JM, Kuto
Page 124 and 125:
108 References 699. Jones RF III. D
Page 126 and 127:
110 References 752. Zachary MJ, Sch
Page 128 and 129:
112 References 811. Rickert VI, Vau
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153:
This version of the monograph does
show all

How far does screening women for domestic (partner) - NIHR Health ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?