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

12
Review methods
Question VII: Is screening for partner violence costeffective?
• Studies had to include an analysis of costs of a
health-care-based partner violence intervention
or screening programme.
Identification of
primary studies
We systematically searched for relevant studies
using strategies that combined content terms
and study designs (search strings available from
authors). Searches were made of the international
literature for published peer-reviewed studies. The
following sources were used to identify studies.
Electronic databases
1. Cochrane Collaboration Central Register
(CENTRAL/CCTR)
2. Biomedical sciences databases:
i. MEDLINE
ii. EMBASE
iii. CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing
and Allied Health Literature)
iv. Database of Abstracts of Reviews for
Effectiveness (DARE)
v. National Research Register (NRR)
vi. Health Management Information
Consortium (HMIC)
vii. MIDIRS (Midwives Informatin and
Resource Service)
viii. British Nursing Index (BNID)
ix. NHS Economic Evaluation.
3. Social sciences databases:
i. Social Science Citation Index (SSCI)
ii. International Bibliography of the Social
Sciences (IBSS)
iii. PsycINFO
iv. Applied Social Sciences Index and
Abstracts (ASSIA).
Searches of these databases included all studies
referenced from their respective start dates to 31
December 2006. In addition to original research
papers, we also searched for any relevant review
articles.
In the case of Question I, we only searched for
review articles in six of the electronic databases:
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, DARE, British
Nursing Index and Social Science Citation Index.
We also used backward and forward citation
tracking to identify other studies and we scrutinised
papers in the reference lists of included studies.
Other sources
1. Personal communication with the first or
corresponding authors of all included articles.
2. Consultation with members of partner
violence organisations/research networks in
the UK, Western Europe, North America and
Australasia.
We did not hand search any journals.
Selection of studies
Two reviewers independently selected studies
for inclusion in the review. Where possible,
disagreement between the two reviewers was
resolved by discussion. If agreement could not
be reached then a third reviewer adjudicated.
Agreement rates across all databases ranged from
70% to 98%, the average inter-rater agreement
being 88%. If additional information was needed to
resolve a disagreement, then this was sought either
from the first or corresponding author of the study
in question.
Data extraction and
methodological appraisal
by reviewers
Data from included studies were extracted by one
reviewer and entered onto electronic collection
forms. All of the extractions were independently
checked by a second reviewer. Again, where
possible, any disagreements between the two
reviewers were resolved by discussion. If this was
not possible, then a third reviewer adjudicated
and all such decisions were documented. Where
necessary, the first authors of studies or the
correspondence authors were contacted to assist
in resolving the disagreement. One reviewer
appraised study quality and strength of design in
relation to the review questions.
Analysis of primary
data extracted
The data extraction forms were used to
compile summary tables of the data and quality
classification. These formed the basis for our
narrative synthesis of the primary studies. We
grouped the findings of the primary studies and
analysed differences between studies in relation
to setting (country, type of health-care facility),
populations (ethnicity, socioeconomic status,