Effectiveness of training to promote routine enquiry for domestic violence by midwives and nurses: A pre-post evaluation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Asking women about experiences of domestic violence in the perinatal period is accepted best practice. However, midwives and nurses may be reluctant to engage with, or effectively respond to disclosures of domestic violence due a lack of knowledge and skills. AIM: To evaluate the impact of training on knowledge and preparedness of midwives and nurses to conduct routine enquiry about domestic violence with women during the perinatal period. METHOD: A pre-post intervention design was used. Midwives and nurses (n=154) attended a full day workshop. Of these, 149 completed pre-post workshop measures of knowledge and preparedness. Additional questions at post-training explored participants' perceptions of organisational barriers to routine enquiry, as well as anticipated impact of training on their practice. Training occurred between July 2015 and October 2016. FINDINGS: Using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, all post intervention scores were significantly higher than pre intervention scores. Knowledge scores increased from a pre-training mean of 21.5-25.6 (Z=-9.56, p<0.001) and level of preparedness increased from 40.8 to 53.2 (Z=-10.12, p<0.001). Most participants (93%) reported improved preparedness to undertake routine enquiry after training. Only a quarter (24.9%) felt their workplace allowed adequate time to respond to disclosures of DV. CONCLUSIONS: Brief training can improve knowledge, preparedness, and confidence of midwives and nurses to conduct routine enquiry and support women during the perinatal period. Training can assist midwives and nurses to recognise signs of DV, ask women about what would be helpful to them, and address perceived organisational barriers to routine enquiry. Practice guidelines and clear referral pathways following DV disclosure need to be implemented to support gains made through training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".