Prospective evaluation of intimate partner violence in fracture clinics (PRAISE-2): protocol for a multicentre pilot prospective cohort study

Madden, Kim

doi:10.1186/s40814-018-0301-9

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, it has been found that 45% of women who are killed by their intimate partner present to a hospital seeking treatment for injuries sustained from instances of IPV in the 2 years prior to their death. 47 Thus, all HCPs should critically consider how their unique role within their health care institution provides opportunities to foster discussions about IPV, support victims, and advocate for the implementation of IPV-related protocols. Radiologists can contribute by becoming aware of the physical manifestations of injuries commonly sustained from instances of IPV.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top 10 Things Every Radiologist Needs to Know About Intimate Partner Violence

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is considered to be the leading cause of nonfatal injury to women worldwide. Moreover, the need for effective training for health care professionals (HCPs) and protocol for addressing IPV in health care contexts are well-documented. This article addresses key questions that radiologists may have related to supporting patients who have experienced IPV. Methods: Peer-reviewed journal articles and other formal reports were located using Google Scholar and PubMed in order to assemble this review. Conclusions: Radiologists are well-equipped to help identify possible instances of IPV if they are aware of the injury patterns commonly associated with IPV. Along with other HCPs, radiologists can also advocate for the implementation of protocols that will guide their responses to victims of IPV within their own health care institution.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top 10 Things Every Radiologist Needs to Know About Intimate Partner Violence

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The lifetime prevalence of IPV was identified by asking participants the three direct questions from the Woman Abuse Screening Tool [4], as used by PRAISE investigators [28, 34]: “In your lifetime, have you been physically abused by an intimate partner?,” “In your lifetime, have you been sexually abused by an intimate partner?,” and “In your lifetime, have you been emotionally abused by an intimate partner?” The three questions were repeated for the past year. Response options were “often,” “sometimes,” and “never.”…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Is the Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence and Traumatic Brain Injury in Fracture Clinic Patients?

Turkstra

Salanki

MacIntyre

et al. 2022

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIndividuals in violent intimate relationships are at a high risk of sustaining both orthopaedic fractures and traumatic brain injury (TBI), and the fracture clinic may be the first place that concurrent intimate partner violence (IPV) and TBI are recognized. Both IPV and TBI can affect all aspects of fracture management, but prevalence of TBI and comorbid TBI and IPV is unknown.Questions/purposes(1) What are the previous-year and lifetime prevalence of IPV and TBI in women presenting to an outpatient orthopaedic fracture clinic? (2) What are the conditional probabilities of TBI in the presence of IPV and the reverse, to explore whether screening for one condition could effectively identify patients with the other? (3) Do patients with TBI, IPV, or both have worse neurobehavioral symptoms than patients without TBI and IPV?MethodsThe study was completed in the fracture clinic at a community Level 1 trauma center in Southern Ontario from July 2018 to March 2019 and included patients seen by three orthopaedic surgeons. Inclusion criteria were self-identification as a woman, age 18 years or older, and the ability to complete forms in English without assistance from the person who brought them to the clinic (for participant safety and privacy). We invited 263 women to participate: 22 were ineligible (for example, they were patients of a surgeon who was not on the study protocol), 87 declined before hearing the topic of the study, and data from eight were excluded because the data were incomplete or lost. Complete data were obtained from 146 participants. Participants’ mean age was 52 ± 16 years, and the most common diagnosis was upper or lower limb fracture. Prevalence of IPV was calculated as the number of women who answered “sometimes” or “often” to direct questions from the Woman Abuse Screening Tool, which asks about physical, emotional, and sexual abuse in the past year or person’s lifetime. The prevalence of TBI was calculated as the number of women who reported at least one head or neck injury that resulted in feeling dazed or confused or in loss of consciousness lasting 30 minutes or less on the Ohio State University Traumatic Brain Injury Identification Method, a standardized procedure for eliciting lifetime history of TBI through a 3- to 5-minute structured interview. Conditional probabilities were calculated using a Bayesian analysis. Neurobehavioral symptoms were characterized using the Neurobehavioral Symptom Inventory, a standard self-report measure of everyday emotional, somatic, and cognitive complaints after TBI, with total scores compared across groups using a one-way ANOVA.ResultsPrevious-year prevalence of physical IPV was 7% (10 of 146), and lifetime prevalence was 28% (41 of 146). Previous-year prevalence of TBI was 8% (12 of 146), and lifetime prevalence was 49% (72 of 146). The probability of TBI in the presence of IPV was 0.77, and probability of IPV in the presence of TBI was 0.36. Thus, screening for IPV identified proportionately more patients with TBI than screening for TBI...

show abstract

“…The inclusion criteria were adult women (at least 16 or 18 years of age, depending on local ethics requirements), patients presenting to participating fracture clinics within 6 weeks of the injury, and patients presenting with a fracture or dislocation. Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, only patients capable of providing consent for themselves were considered for participation 21 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intimate Partner Violence During Recovery from an Orthopaedic Injury

Madden

Sprague

Petrisor

et al. 2022

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Orthopaedic injuries may lead to an increased incidence of intimate partner violence (IPV) during recovery as people dependent on others’ help are at a higher risk for abuse. Additionally, there is a lack of understanding of how IPV affects injury recovery. In women being treated for an orthopaedic injury, we aimed to determine the number of new IPV disclosures in the 12 months after an injury and to explore the impact of IPV on recovery.Methods:We enrolled 250 female participants from 6 orthopaedic fracture clinics in Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, and Finland. IPV disclosure and clinical outcomes were assessed at the initial visit and during the 12-month follow-up period.Results:Of 250 participants, 81 (32.4% [95% confidence interval (CI), 26.6% to 38.2%]) had a history of IPV in their lifetime and disclosed this at their initial orthopaedic clinic appointment. Twenty-one participants (12.4% [95% CI, 7.5% to 17.8%]) who did not disclose abuse at the initial visit disclosed IPV during the follow-up. In our a priori unadjusted analysis, disclosure of IPV at the initial appointment or a subsequent follow-up appointment was associated with a 32% lower likelihood of returning to a pre-injury level of function with no restrictions regarding responsibilities at home (hazard ratio, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.46 to 0.99]; p = 0.046). Participants disclosing IPV had lower health-related quality of life on the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) at the 6-month-follow-up, with adjusted mean differences of −5.3 (95% CI, −10.2 to −0.4, p = 0.04) for the visual analog scale and −0.06 (95% CI, −0.11 to −0.01; p = 0.02) for the Function Index. They also had lower Function Index scores at the final 12-month follow-up visit, with an adjusted mean difference of −0.06 (95% CI, −0.10 to −0.02; p = 0.006).Conclusions:A surprisingly high percentage of women disclosed IPV within 12 months after the injury. Our exploratory results suggest that women who disclose IPV may have lower health-related quality of life. This study supports the need to optimize orthopaedic clinics to provide appropriate support for asking about and assisting individuals who experienced IPV. Additional research is warranted to further explore these findings.Level of Evidence:Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

show abstract

Prospective evaluation of intimate partner violence in fracture clinics (PRAISE-2): protocol for a multicentre pilot prospective cohort study

Cited by 4 publications

References 34 publications

Top 10 Things Every Radiologist Needs to Know About Intimate Partner Violence

Top 10 Things Every Radiologist Needs to Know About Intimate Partner Violence

What Is the Prevalence of Intimate Partner Violence and Traumatic Brain Injury in Fracture Clinic Patients?

Intimate Partner Violence During Recovery from an Orthopaedic Injury

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About