Intimate Partner Violence and Paramedicine: An Updated Scoping Review of Perspectives and Practices
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly being recognized as a clinical circumstance to which Emergency Medical Services (EMS) clinicians attend. IPV refers to the use of physical, sexual, psychological, and coercive violence by a current or former intimate partner to exert power and control. The intersection of paramedicine and IPV remains largely unclear. Our objective is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence at the intersection of paramedicine and IPV. METHODS: This review followed a published protocol (Open Science Framework), and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Co-developed with two trained librarians, a search strategy was used to locate potential articles in MEDLINE and CINAHL, and conduct a gray literature search. Included articles examined perceptions and/or practice of EMS clinicians and students in the context of IPV. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. A third reviewer resolved any disagreement. Data were extracted from eligible articles using a purpose-built template and the findings were summarized and synthesized. RESULTS: Of the 518 articles, 34 met inclusion criteria. The literature was varied and heterogenous, preventing mass, detailed synthesis. Generally, EMS clinicians were motivated to assist IPV survivors but perceived their education as insufficient to provide high-quality care, reporting low rates of training/education with corresponding low self-efficacy. Considerations for the specific and unique environment of paramedicine were lacking. Standardized patients and/or simulations were beneficial for pre-practice students acquiring history gathering and interview skills. Jurisdictional variations in legislation, policy, and standards, as well as overlapping agency/department regulations introduced practice variance. The validity and utility of EMS clinician-collected surveillance data were unclear. CONCLUSIONS: While EMS clinicians were recognized as a poorly understood, under-utilized, and under-equipped resource for IPV survivors, current literature is insufficient to comprehensively guide practice. Heterogeneity and limited quantity contribute to this challenge. Future research should leverage newly developed and validated measures to identify gaps responsive to educational and/or policy interventions and explore novel technologies to improve the quality of EMS clinician-collected IPV data. Equipping EMS clinicians with the tools to provide high-quality IPV care will benefit IPV survivors, EMS clinicians, and health care more broadly.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».