HITS demonstrated good reliability and validity with ISA-P in English speaking patients. The Spanish version of HITS showed moderate reliability and good validity with WAST in Spanish speaking patients. HITS may help physicians detect abuse in predominantly Hispanic clinical settings.

To ensure that the specific needs and health beliefs of the Latino community are addressed, future research should incorporate community input to create more tailored and effective cancer educational programs for Latinos.

PURPOSE We undertook a study to compare 3 ways of administering brief domestic violence screening questionnaires: self-administered questionnaire, medical staff interview, and physician interview. METHODSWe conducted a randomized trial of 3 screening protocols for domestic violence in 4 urban family medicine practices with mostly minority patients. We randomly assigned 523 female patients, aged 18 years or older and currently involved with a partner, to 1 of 3 screening protocols. Each included 2 brief screening tools: HITS and WAST-Short. Outcome measures were domestic violence disclosure, patient and clinician comfort with the screening, and time spent screening. RESULTSOverall prevalence of domestic violence was 14%. Most patients (93.4%) and clinicians (84.5%) were comfortable with the screening questions and method of administering them. Average time spent screening was 4.4 minutes. Disclosure rates, patient and clinician comfort with screening, and time spent screening were similar among the 3 protocols. In addition, WAST-Short was validated in this sample of minority women by comparison with HITS and with the 8-item WAST.CONCLUSIONS Domestic violence is common, and we found that most patients and clinicians are comfortable with domestic violence screening in urban family medicine settings. Patient self-administered domestic violence screening is as effective as clinician interview in terms of disclosure, comfort, and time spent screening. INTRODUCTIONT he prevalence of current victims of domestic violence among patients in primary care settings ranges from 7% to 50%, 1 even though studies show that only 1% to 15% of women in primary care settings were asked about domestic violence by their clinician.2-4 Lack of offi ce protocols and limited time are perceived as common barriers by medical clinicians. [5][6][7][8] In one study, battered women perceived clinician reluctance to ask about abuse as a major barrier to their domestic violence disclosure. 9Although studies have found that brief screening questionnaires increase identifi cation of domestic violence, 10,11 research fi ndings are inconsistent on the optimum method of administering screening tests. In a recent randomized study, MacMillan et al found no signifi cant difference in the proportion of patients who disclosed domestic violence using a selfadministered questionnaire compared with patients who were interviewed by a clinician; the patients, however, preferred self-administered screening. 12 McFarlane and colleagues found that a medical staff interview identifi ed more abused women than a written history form, 13 whereas another study reported opposite fi ndings.14 With few notable exceptions, The purpose of this study was to identify an optimal screening protocol to help overcome barriers to domestic violence screening. We compared the rate of domestic violence disclosure, comfort level with screening, and time spent screening for self-administered, medical staff interview, and physician interview screening protocols. METHODS Partic...

articlesBehavior and Psychology cancer screening in obese women and to develop questions relevant for a subsequent mail survey of 255 family physicians. For the interviews, physicians were recruited from preceptors affiliated with

Purpose: To evaluate the association of intimate partner violence (IPV) with breast and cervical cancer screening rates.Methods: We conducted retrospective chart audits of 382 adult women at 4 urban family medicine practices. Inclusion criteria were not being pregnant, no cancer history, and having a partner. Victims were defined as those who screened positive on at least one of 2 brief IPV screening tools: the HITS (Hurt, Insult, Threat, Scream) tool or Women Abuse Screening Tool (short). Logistic regression models were used to examine whether nonvictims, victims of emotional abuse, and victims of physical and/or sexual abuse were up to date for mammograms and Papanicolaou smears. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is an important social concern. It is estimated that 7.7 million IPV victimizations occur each year and that the lifetime prevalence of IPV victimization is 25% among women and 8% among men in the general population.1 Women are particularly vulnerable to the harmful effects of IPV; they are 7 to 14 times more likely than men to suffer severe physical injury from an assault by an intimate partner.2 A history of being the target of violence puts women at increased risk of physical injury, chronic pain syndromes, irritable bowel syndrome, gastrointestinal disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, 3-5 depression, suicide attempts, psychosomatic disorders, reproductive health consequences, and other comorbidities. 6Victims also reported more risky behaviors, including smoking, heavy drinking, and drug use. 1,[7][8][9][10] More recently, research has explored the association between IPV and health issues related to breast and cervical cancer. Studies have found that exposure to IPV increases the risk of cervical cancer, 11,12 possibly through its effect on risk factors such as stress, smoking, and drinking. 11 Alternatively, IPV may be related to decreased adherence to cancer screening. Findings from the few studies about the association between IPV and cancer screening have been inconsistent. A recent Australian study of 7312 middle-aged women (aged 45 to 50) found that those who have experienced IPV