Detecting Intimate Partner Abuse within Clinical Settings: Self Report or an Interview

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/155235
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Detecting Intimate Partner Abuse within Clinical Settings: Self Report or an Interview
Abstract:
Detecting Intimate Partner Abuse within Clinical Settings: Self Report or an Interview
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2008
Author:Svavarsdottir, Erla K., PhD, RN
P.I. Institution Name:University of Iceland
Title:Professor
Co-Authors:Brynja Orlygsdottir, MS
[Research Paper or Poster Presentation] Background: Routine screening for intimate partner abuse (IPA) has been recommended within health care settings. However, which instruments and methods are most effective in detecting abuse continues to be debated in the literature. Objectives: To evaluate, within the Icelandic health care setting, the effectiveness of two screening procedures, the a) ôWomen Abuse Screening Toolö (a self-report questionnaire), and b) the ôEvaluation Interview Frame for Nurses and Midwives, Regarding Women Abuse, Screening and First Responseö, in detecting women abuse within an emergency department (ED) and a high risk prenatal care clinic (HRPCC) in Reykjavik; and c) to evaluate the frequency of missing data based on the methods used. Design: A descriptive, cross-sectional design was used in the study. Settings: Data were collected at one time in 2006, over a period of 5 to 7 months, from women seeking health care services at an ED and pregnant women in their first trimester attending an HRPCC. Methods: Two methods were used, a self-report instrument (the WAST questionnaire) and a face-to-face interview with a nurse or a midwife. Results: A variety of prior and current abuse experience were disclosed by each method. The women disclosed, however, physical abuse more often in the face-to-face interview. The women at the ED disclosed more emotional and sexual abuse by an intimate partner by using the self-report instrument; but the women at the HRPCC disclosed the same ratio of emotional and sexual abuse regardless of the method used. In addition, the face-to-face interview had fewer missing data regarding disclosure of abuse. Contradictory to what has previously been reported in the literature, there were no clear cut results found regarding which of the methods was more effective in revealing abuse; rather, disclosure, for some of the women, was based on a combination of the two methods used and the type of abuse inquired about. Conclusion: Implications might focus on using different methods within different clinical settings, e.g., face-to-face interviews at an ED, but questionnaire(s) at a High Risk Prenatal Clinic; or on using mixed methods approach within the same clinical setting. Such decision should however be based on the purpose of screening for women abuse and on how and in what way clinicians and researchers are going to intervene with the women.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleDetecting Intimate Partner Abuse within Clinical Settings: Self Report or an Interviewen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/155235-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Detecting Intimate Partner Abuse within Clinical Settings: Self Report or an Interview</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2008</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Svavarsdottir, Erla K., PhD, RN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Iceland</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">eks@hi.is</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Brynja Orlygsdottir, MS</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">[Research Paper or Poster Presentation] Background: Routine screening for intimate partner abuse (IPA) has been recommended within health care settings. However, which instruments and methods are most effective in detecting abuse continues to be debated in the literature. Objectives: To evaluate, within the Icelandic health care setting, the effectiveness of two screening procedures, the a) &ocirc;Women Abuse Screening Tool&ouml; (a self-report questionnaire), and b) the &ocirc;Evaluation Interview Frame for Nurses and Midwives, Regarding Women Abuse, Screening and First Response&ouml;, in detecting women abuse within an emergency department (ED) and a high risk prenatal care clinic (HRPCC) in Reykjavik; and c) to evaluate the frequency of missing data based on the methods used. Design: A descriptive, cross-sectional design was used in the study. Settings: Data were collected at one time in 2006, over a period of 5 to 7 months, from women seeking health care services at an ED and pregnant women in their first trimester attending an HRPCC. Methods: Two methods were used, a self-report instrument (the WAST questionnaire) and a face-to-face interview with a nurse or a midwife. Results: A variety of prior and current abuse experience were disclosed by each method. The women disclosed, however, physical abuse more often in the face-to-face interview. The women at the ED disclosed more emotional and sexual abuse by an intimate partner by using the self-report instrument; but the women at the HRPCC disclosed the same ratio of emotional and sexual abuse regardless of the method used. In addition, the face-to-face interview had fewer missing data regarding disclosure of abuse. Contradictory to what has previously been reported in the literature, there were no clear cut results found regarding which of the methods was more effective in revealing abuse; rather, disclosure, for some of the women, was based on a combination of the two methods used and the type of abuse inquired about. Conclusion: Implications might focus on using different methods within different clinical settings, e.g., face-to-face interviews at an ED, but questionnaire(s) at a High Risk Prenatal Clinic; or on using mixed methods approach within the same clinical setting. Such decision should however be based on the purpose of screening for women abuse and on how and in what way clinicians and researchers are going to intervene with the women.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T13:39:34Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T13:39:34Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.