A Protocol to Diagnose Intimate Partner Violence in the Emergency Department

Halpern, L.; Perciaccante, Vincent J.; Hayes, Catherine; Susarla, Srinivas M.; Dodson, Thomas B.

doi:10.1097/01.ta.0000218247.58465.db

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The most studied IPV screening tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS),13–15,24,43 the Woman Abuse Screening Tool/Woman Abuse Screening Tool-Short Form (WAST/WAST-SF),15–17,25,26,44 the Partner Violence Screen (PVS),22–26,44 and the AAS 30,35–37. These screening instruments are summarized in Table 1, which includes the specific questions and scoring for each screening tool, demographics of the populations on whom the screening tool has been tested, and a summary of the screening tools’ psychometric properties.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A two-item short-form version uses the first two questions, which ask general relationship questions as opposed to specific questions about violence. Only one study tested the sensitivity and specificity of the eight-item WAST;44 two studies tested the WAST-SF in combination with other screens and/or physical signs;25,26 and one study compared the eight-item version to the short form 17. Two studies16,17 found that the WAST has good internal reliability.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies22,24,44 assessed the sensitivity and specificity of the PVS, reporting a wide range of sensitivities. Two additional studies25,26 examined the sensitivity and specificity of an “augmented” PVS. Houry et al23 established the predictive validity of the PVS plus three additional questions.…”

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools

Rabin

Jennings

Campbell

et al. 2009

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

387

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. Evidence acquisition From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Evidence synthesis Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%–100%, specificity 86%–99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%–71%, specificity 80%–94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%–94%, specificity 55%–99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test–retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. Conclusions No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.

show abstract

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Evidence Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools

Rabin

Jennings

Campbell

et al. 2009

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

387

335

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These findings are similar to a previous study in Hong Kong (16). Among female IPV victims, head-neck-face (HNF) injuries are commonly associated with IPV, and this injury pattern thus serves as a marker of women at high risk of IPV (25)(26)(27)(28). The health care profession uses physical injuries as an indicator of IPV (28).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Injury Patterns and Help-seeking Behavior in Hong Kong Male Intimate Partner Violence Victims

Choi

Wong

Kam

et al. 2015

The Journal of Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…22 Two screening instruments, the Partner Violence Screen and the Women Abuse Screening Tool are quick, reliable tools that have been validated in emergency medicine and trauma settings, and may be useful in intimate partner violence prevention measures. 17,[22][23][24][25] In summary, firearm assaults against women are highly lethal when perpetrated by intimate partners, and many of these assaults occur in the home. These injury patterns may be underrepresented in currently available databases, and this may have implications for trauma prevention programs.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%