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

2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/159790
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:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2009
Author:Svavarsdottir, Erla Kolbrun, PhD
P.I. Institution Name:University of Iceland
Title:Faculty of Nursing
Contact Address:Eirberg, Eiriksgata 34, Reykjavik, IS-101, Iceland
Contact Telephone:354-525-4960
Co-Authors:E. Svavarsdottir, University of Iceland, Faculty of Nursing, Eirberg, Eiriksgata 34, IS-101 Reykjavik, ICELAND;
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 the effectiveness of two screening procedures/methods, a self-report questionnaire and an interview, in detecting women abuse within an emergency department (ED) and a high risk prenatal care clinic (HRPCC). The frequency of missing data based on the methods used was also evaluated. Design: Cross-sectional design was used in the study. Settings: Data were collected at one time in 2006, over a period of 7 months, from 101 women seeking health care services at an ED and 107 pregnant women in their first trimester attending an HRPCC. Methods: Two methods were used, a self-report instrument 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 however disclosed physical abuse more often in the face-to-face interview. The women at the ED disclosed emotional and sexual abuse by an intimate partner more often when 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. 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, for some of the women, disclosure 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 a 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:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

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/10755/159790-
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">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2009</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Svavarsdottir, Erla Kolbrun, PhD</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">Faculty of Nursing</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">Eirberg, Eiriksgata 34, Reykjavik, IS-101, Iceland</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">354-525-4960</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">E. Svavarsdottir, University of Iceland, Faculty of Nursing, Eirberg, Eiriksgata 34, IS-101 Reykjavik, ICELAND;</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">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 the effectiveness of two screening procedures/methods, a self-report questionnaire and an interview, in detecting women abuse within an emergency department (ED) and a high risk prenatal care clinic (HRPCC). The frequency of missing data based on the methods used was also evaluated. Design: Cross-sectional design was used in the study. Settings: Data were collected at one time in 2006, over a period of 7 months, from 101 women seeking health care services at an ED and 107 pregnant women in their first trimester attending an HRPCC. Methods: Two methods were used, a self-report instrument 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 however disclosed physical abuse more often in the face-to-face interview. The women at the ED disclosed emotional and sexual abuse by an intimate partner more often when 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. 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, for some of the women, disclosure 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 a 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.available2011-10-26T22:20:13Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T22:20:13Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.