4.7 Article

Missed opportunities: Intimate partner violence in family practice settings

期刊

PREVENTIVE MEDICINE
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 445-454

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/pmed.2001.1005

关键词

spouse abuse; violence; screening; women; prevention; mental health

资金

  1. ODCDC CDC HHS [R49 CCR412752] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. For women experiencing partner violence, women health care visits represent opportunities for physicians and patients to address intimate partner violence (IPV), a significant health threat for women. Objectives. The objectives were to estimate rates of physician documentation of IPV in medical records; characterize IPV+ women most likely to have IPV documented; and determine whether IPV screening increased IPV documentation. Methods. Subjects were women ages 18-65 receiving primary care in two large family practice clinics. All were screened for IPV by study staff using a modified Index of Spouse Abuse and the Women's Experience with Battering scales. We selected and abstracted medical records for all women experiencing current IPV (N = 144) and a random sample of women never experiencing IPV (N = 147). Results. Of 144 women screened as currently; experiencing IPV, 14.7% were documented. Women most likely to have IPV documented were Caucasian, with higher WEB scores, and more likely to have an event that could trigger posttraumatic stress syndrome. Although the majority (41/56) of women currently in physically violent relationships did not plan to disclose IPV, those disclosing were significantly more likely to have IPV documented and documentation occurred after screening for 60% of women experiencing IPV. Conclusion. IPV screening increased documentation. IPV screening can provide the opportunity for patients to disclose IPV. Physicians then have the opportunity, to compassionately connect patients with appropriate resources. (C) 2002 American Health Foundation and Elsevier science (USA).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据