A Scoping Review of Intimate Partner Violence Screening Programs for Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Between 38 and 59 percent of women presenting to health care professionals have experienced intimate partner violence. Consequently, multiple intimate partner violence identification or screening programs within health care settings have been developed; however, substantial variations in program content and interpretation of program effectiveness has resulted in conflicting practice guidelines. The purpose of our scoping review is to broadly identify and synthesize the available literature evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and to focus research priorities in the field. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and psycINFO. We used broad eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated intimate partner violence identification programs in health care settings. We completed all screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We used descriptive statistics to summarize all data. RESULTS: We identified 59 eligible studies evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings. The most commonly reported outcome themes were IPV disclosure (69%, n = 35), number of patients screened (39%, n = 20), HCP opinions towards screening (37%, n = 19), and patient opinions towards screening (29%, n = 15). The majority of studies (36 studies (70.6%)) reported positive program evaluation results. DISCUSSION: The majority of studies reported positive program evaluation results. This may suggest that many different intimate partner violence identification programs are beneficial for identifying victims of abuse, however, it remains unknown as to whether identification programs prevent future episodes of abuse. Additionally, the substantial heterogeneity of the intervention characteristics, study methodology, and outcome measures assessed limits the ability to make clear recommendations as to the optimal method(s) of screening.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".