MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W43502152

Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence and Elderly and Vulnerable Adults for Abuse: Systematic Review to Update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation

2012· article· en· W43502152 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heidi D Nelson, Christina Bougatsos, Ian Blazina

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePsycINFOPsychological interventionSystematic reviewMEDLINEPoison controlPopulationHealth careDomestic violenceFamily medicineSuicide preventionPsychiatryMedical emergencyEnvironmental health
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) and abuse of elders and vulnerable persons is common in the United States and often undetected. Screening individuals without obvious signs of abuse in health care settings could identify those at risk and lead to interventions that reduce exposure to violence and abuse and improve health outcomes. Purpose To update the previous 2004 evidence report on screening for IPV and abuse of elders and vulnerable persons for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources We reviewed the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews through the fourth quarter of 2011, and MEDLINE and PsycINFO from 2002 to January 9, 2012, for relevant English-language studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. Reference lists of papers and citations of key studies were reviewed manually and by using Scopus. Study Selection The screening population included adults who have no obvious signs or symptoms of abuse who interact with health care providers in a number of health care settings. Studies were selected based on preestablished selection criteria using randomized, controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of screening and interventions to reduce abuse and improve health outcomes; studies of diagnostic accuracy to evaluate the ability of screening instruments to identify abused individuals; and studies of any design to determine harms of screening and interventions. Data Extraction For studies of screening and interventions, information about the patient populations, study designs, screening methods, types of interventions, followup, methods of analysis, and results were abstracted. For studies of screening instruments, details about the study designs, instruments, reference standards, populations, methods of administration, and results were abstracted. Predefined criteria developed by the USPSTF were used to rate the quality of studies as good, fair, or poor. Data Synthesis For IPV, a randomized, controlled trial comparing IPV screening versus no screening in Canadian health care settings indicated that both groups had reductions in IPV recurrence, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and alcohol problems, as well as improvements in scores for quality of life, depression, and mental health after 18 months of followup; however, differences between groups were not statistically significant for these outcomes. Six instruments with 1 to 8 items demonstrated sensitivity and specificity >80 percent in clinical populations of asymptomatic women; results varied between studies and across instruments. A trial of pregnant women reported decreased violence and improved birth outcomes with counseling versus usual care. Two trials of home visitation versus no visitation for young mothers resulted in improved outcomes with visitation. Counseling resulted in decreased pregnancy coercion and resolution of unsafe relationships versus usual care in one trial. Two trials of counseling showed improved outcomes in intervention and control groups without differences between them (counseling vs. referral cards, nurse management vs. usual care in pregnancy). For abuse of elder and vulnerable adults, few studies met inclusion criteria. A descriptive study of elderly abused veterans who were identified in primary care clinics and referred to case management found that 5 percent were reported to Adult Protective Services and 6 percent required nursing home placement or conservatorship arrangements. A single instrument, the Elder Abuse Suspicion Index, was evaluated for diagnostic accuracy and had sensitivity and specificity of 9 to 47 percent and 75 to 97 percent, respectively, depending on the number of positive responses to specific questions. Limitations Studies of IPV were limited by heterogeneity, lack of true control groups, high and/or differential loss to followup, self-reported measures, inadequate power, recall bias, missing data, Hawthorne effect among control participants, and reference standards that were not credible or replicable in diagnostic accuracy studies. Studies of elder and vulnerable adult abuse were lacking. Conclusions A trial of screening showed reductions in IPV recurrence and improvement in related outcomes for both screening and comparison groups, but interpretations are limited by high attrition and the Hawthorne effect. Trials of IPV interventions for pregnant women and young mothers showed improved outcomes for the intervention versus usual care groups. Several instruments have been developed for IPV screening; six instruments with 1 to 8 items demonstrated sensitivity and specificity >80 percent in clinical populations of asymptomatic women, although results varied between studies and across instruments. Studies were lacking to address screening elderly and vulnerable adults for abuse.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,662
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,735

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,015
Tête enseignante GPT0,319
Écart entre enseignants0,304 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations33
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceTravaux en français237 207