0
Letters |

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence

Achini Jayatilleke, MBBS, MHSc; Krishna C. Poudel, PhD, MHSc, MA; Masamine Jimba, MD, PhD, MPH
JAMA. 2009;302(22):2434-2435. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.1796
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To the Editor: In their randomized controlled trial, Dr MacMillan and colleagues1 concluded that there was not sufficient evidence to support intimate partner violence (IPV) screening in health care settings. Their results suggested that IPV screening did not significantly improve the quality of life and depression scores among women who experienced IPV in Canada or significantly reduce IPV recurrence. However, the results of this study should be interpreted with caution for 2 reasons.

First, the authors used 2 groups of women, a screened group (n = 3271) and a nonscreened group (n = 3472), to assess the effectiveness of IPV screening. The screened group completed the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) before seeing the clinician, and the nonscreened group completed it after seeing the clinician. In the screened group, the information was given to the clinician when a woman screened positive on WAST. Because the study gave clinicians standardized training in responding to IPV, clinicians were expected to discuss IPV with the WAST-positive women.

However, in the screened group, only 44% of the 347 women who were positive on WAST reported that they had a discussion about violence with their clinicians. Discussion between clinicians and women on their experience of IPV is known to provide an opportunity to support such women.2 3 Although the outcome of the participants who discussed violence with physicians might therefore be different from the outcome of other participants who did not discuss it, the authors did not provide an analysis stratified on this difference. The results of such an analysis with stratification might provide better conclusions on the outcome of IPV screening in health care settings.

Second, in this study the majority of the participants who experienced IPV (75% of the screened group and 71% of the nonscreened group) had used a violence-related service during 6 months preceding the study baseline. These participants might have already obtained the benefits expected from screening in a health care setting. If the authors had excluded women who had a history of using a violence-related service, their results might have been different.

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Financial Disclosures: None reported.

REFERENCES

MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Jamieson E,  et al; for the McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group.  Screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a randomized trial.  JAMA. 2009;302(5):493-501
PubMedCrossRef
Phelan MB. Screening for intimate partner violence in medical settings.  Trauma Violence Abuse. 2007;8(2):199-213
PubMedCrossRef
Chuang CH, Liebschutz JM. Screening for intimate partner violence in the primary care setting: a critical review.  J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2002;9(10):565-571

First Page Preview

First page PDF preview

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Jamieson E,  et al; for the McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group.  Screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: a randomized trial.  JAMA. 2009;302(5):493-501
PubMedCrossRef
Phelan MB. Screening for intimate partner violence in medical settings.  Trauma Violence Abuse. 2007;8(2):199-213
PubMedCrossRef
Chuang CH, Liebschutz JM. Screening for intimate partner violence in the primary care setting: a critical review.  J Clin Outcomes Manage. 2002;9(10):565-571
December 9, 2009
Harriet L. MacMillan, MD, MSc, FRCPC; C. Nadine Wathen, PhD; Michael H. Boyle, PhD
JAMA. 2009;302(22):2434-2435.
CME Course for:


You need to register in order to view this quiz.


To understand the clinical management of acute heart failure syndromes.
Accreditation Information The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians.
The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
To view and print your certificate and access a summary of your CME courses go to My CME.
NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s “Cited By” API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).
Submit a Response

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.