Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings: A Randomized Trial | Emergency Medicine | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.153.100.128. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Cole TB. Is domestic violence screening helpful?  JAMA. 2000;284(5):551-55310918685PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Taket A, Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Should health professionals screen all women for domestic violence?  PLoS Med. 2004;1(1):e415526052PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
American Medical Association.  Policy Statement on Family and Intimate Partner Violence: H-515.965. National Advisory Council on Violence and Abuse Policy Compendium. April 2008. http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/386/vio_policy_comp.pdf. Accessed June 29, 2009
4.
Family Violence Prevention Fund.  The national consensus guidelines on identifying and responding to domestic violence victimization in health care settings. 2004. http://endabuse.org/section/programs/health_care/_consensus_guidelines. Accessed February 27, 2009
5.
Rodriguez MA, Bauer HM, McLoughlin E, Grumbach K. Screening and intervention for intimate partner abuse: practices and attitudes of primary care physicians.  JAMA. 1999;282(5):468-47410442663PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Phelan MB. Screening for intimate partner violence in medical settings.  Trauma Violence Abuse. 2007;8(2):199-21317545574PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Coker AL, Flerx VC, Smith PH, Whitaker DJ, Fadden MK, Williams M. Partner violence screening in rural health care clinics.  Am J Public Health. 2007;97(7):1319-132517538065PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Rabin RF, Jennings JM, Campbell JC, Bair-Merritt MH. Intimate partner violence screening tools: a systematic review.  Am J Prev Med. 2009;36(5):439-445.e419362697PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Chuang CH, Liebschutz JM. Screening for intimate partner violence in the primary care setting: a critical review.  J Clin Outcomes Manag. 2002;9:565-573Google Scholar
10.
Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J.US Preventive Services Task Force.  Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the US Preventive Services Task Force.  Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(5):387-39614996681PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Wathen CN, MacMillan HL.Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.  Prevention of violence against women: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.  CMAJ. 2003;169(6):582-58412975227PubMedGoogle Scholar
12.
Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review.  JAMA. 2003;289(5):589-60012578492PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson L, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? systematic review.  BMJ. 2002;325(7359):31412169509PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.  Comprehensive Manual for Hospitals. Oakbrook, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations; 1996
15.
Brown JB, Lent B, Schmidt G, Sas G. Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-Short in the family practice setting.  J Fam Pract. 2000;49(10):896-90311052161PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Brown JB, Lent B, Brett PJ, Sas G, Pederson LL. Development of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool for use in family practice.  Fam Med. 1996;28(6):422-4288791071PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Jamieson E,  et al; McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group.  Approaches to screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a randomized trial.  JAMA. 2006;296(5):530-53616882959PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Hegarty K, Bush R, Sheehan M. The Composite Abuse Scale: further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings.  Violence Vict. 2005;20(5):529-54716248489PubMedGoogle Scholar
19.
Hegarty K, Sheehan M, Schonfeld C. A multidimensional definition of partner abuse: development and preliminary validation of the Composite Abuse Scale.  J Fam Violence. 1999;14(4):399-415Google ScholarCrossref
20.
Straus MA. Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: the Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales.  J Marriage Family. 1979;41(1):75-88Google ScholarCrossref
21.
WHOQOL Group.  Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment.  Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551-5589626712PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M. Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(1):1-1210693897PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population.  Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1:385-401Google ScholarCrossref
24.
Meltzer-Brody S, Churchill E, Davidson JR. Derivation of the SPAN, a brief diagnostic screening test for post-traumatic stress disorder.  Psychiatry Res. 1999;88(1):63-7010641587PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Russell M, Martier SS, Sokol RJ,  et al.  Screening for pregnancy risk-drinking.  Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1994;18(5):1156-11617847599PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
El-Bassel N, Schilling RF, Schinke S,  et al.  Assessing the utility of the Drug Abuse Screening Test in the workplace.  Res Soc Work Pract. 1997;7:99-114Google Scholar
27.
Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.  Med Care. 1996;34(3):220-2338628042PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Lock J. The Development of the Consequences of Screening Tool and the Psychometric Assessment of Three Woman Abuse Measures [thesis]. Hamilton, ON: McMaster University; 2008
29.
Browne GB, Arpin K, Corey P, Fitch M, Gafni A. Individual correlates of health service utilization and cost of poor adjustment to chronic illness.  Med Care. 1990;28(1):43-582136926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Rasbash J, Browne W, Goldstein H,  et al.  A Users Guide to MLwiN, Version 2.1. London, England: Institute of Education; 2000
31.
Houry D, Kaslow NJ, Kemball RS,  et al.  Does screening in the emergency department hurt or help victims of intimate partner violence?  Ann Emerg Med. 2008;51(4):433-44218313800PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Wathen CN, Jamieson E, Wilson M, Daly M, Worster A, MacMillan HL. Risk indicators to identify intimate partner violence in the emergency department. Open Med. 2007;1(2):e113-e122. http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/63/62. Accessed February 27, 2009
33.
Alpert EJ. Addressing domestic violence: the (long) road ahead.  Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(9):666-66717975189PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation.  Med Care. 2003;41(5):582-59212719681PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Wathen CN, Jamieson E, MacMillan HL.McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group.  Who is identified by screening for intimate partner violence?  Womens Health Issues. 2008;18(6):423-43219041594PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
August 5, 2009

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings: A Randomized Trial

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Departments of Psychiatry and Behavioural Neurosciences (Drs MacMillan and Boyle and Ms Jamieson), Pediatrics (Dr MacMillan), Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (Drs Boyle and Shannon), and Emergency Medicine (Dr Worster), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Faculty of Information and Media Studies (Dr Wathen), Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing (Dr Ford-Gilboe), and Department of Family Medicine (Dr Lent), The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada; Department of Emergency Medicine and Community Medicine, West Virginia University School of Medicine, Morgantown (Dr Coben); School of Nursing, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland (Dr Campbell); and Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany (Dr McNutt).

JAMA. 2009;302(5):493-501. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1089
Abstract

Context Whether intimate partner violence (IPV) screening reduces violence or improves health outcomes for women is unknown.

Objective To determine the effectiveness of IPV screening and communication of positive results to clinicians.

Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized controlled trial conducted in 11 emergency departments, 12 family practices, and 3 obstetrics/gynecology clinics in Ontario, Canada, among 6743 English-speaking female patients aged 18 to 64 years who presented between July 2005 and December 2006, could be seen individually, and were well enough to participate.

Intervention Women in the screened group (n=3271) self-completed the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST); if a woman screened positive, this information was given to her clinician before the health care visit. Subsequent discussions and/or referrals were at the discretion of the treating clinician. The nonscreened group (n=3472) self-completed the WAST and other measures after their visit.

Main Outcome Measures Women disclosing past-year IPV were interviewed at baseline and every 6 months until 18 months regarding IPV reexposure and quality of life (primary outcomes), as well as several health outcomes and potential harms of screening.

Results Participant loss to follow-up was high: 43% (148/347) of screened women and 41% (148/360) of nonscreened women. At 18 months (n = 411), observed recurrence of IPV among screened vs nonscreened women was 46% vs 53% (modeled odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-2.12). Screened vs nonscreened women exhibited about a 0.2-SD greater improvement in quality-of-life scores (modeled score difference at 18 months, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-7.00). When multiple imputation was used to account for sample loss, differences between groups were reduced and quality-of-life differences were no longer significant. Screened women reported no harms of screening.

Conclusions Although sample attrition urges cautious interpretation, the results of this trial do not provide sufficient evidence to support IPV screening in health care settings. Evaluation of services for women after identification of IPV remains a priority.

Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182468

×