Exploring Factors Shaping Primary Health Care Readiness to Respond to Family Violence: Findings from a Rapid Evidence Assessment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Purpose Family violence (FV) is defined as any situation where an individual employs abusive behaviour to control and/or harm a former or current spouse, non-marital partner, or a member of their family. The health consequences of FV are vast, including a wide range of physical and mental health conditions for individuals experiencing violence or survivors, perpetrators, and their children. Primary health care (PHC) is recognized as a setting uniquely positioned to identify the risk and protective factors for FV, being an entry point into the health care system and a first, or only, point of contact for families with professionals who can facilitate access to specialist care and support. Methods A rapid evidence assessment of empirical studies on FV interventions in PHC was conducted to examine outcomes of effective FV interventions that promote identification, assessment, and care delivery within diverse PHC settings, factors shaping PHC provider and system readiness, and key intervention components that are important for sustaining PHC responses to FV. After completing data extraction, quality appraisal, and a hand search, a total of 49 articles were included in data synthesis and analysis. Results Several FV interventions that include multiple components such as, screening and identification of FV, training of PHC providers, advocacy, and referrals to supports, have been rigorously tested and evaluated in diverse PHC settings in rural and urban areas including primary care/family medicine practice clinics and community PHC centers. These interventions have demonstrated to be effective in identifying and responding to violence primarily experienced by women. There is a dearth of FV interventions or programs from empirical studies focused on men, children, and perpetrators. Additionally, provider and system readiness measurement tools and models have been implemented and evaluated in PHC specifically to assess physician or the health care team’s readiness to manage FV in terms of knowledge and awareness of FV. The findings highlight that there is no clear or standardized definition of provider or system “readiness” in the literature related to FV responses in PHC. Further, the findings revealed four key intervention components to facilitate PHC provider and organization readiness to address FV: (1) multidisciplinary teamwork and collaboration, (2) improving provider knowledge on the social and cultural determinants impacting FV, and (3) embedding system-level supports within PHC. Conclusions FV is a serious public health concern and PHC providers have a vital role in early detection of FV and the poor health outcomes associated with violence A focus on comprehensive or multi-component FV interventions are more likely to change provider behavior, and would allow for safe, confident, and professional identification and assessment of FV within PHC.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».