MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391606027 · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17578-4

Longitudinal effectiveness of a woman-led, nurse delivered health promotion intervention for women who have experienced intimate partner violence: iHEAL randomized controlled trial

2024· article· en· W4391606027 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marilyn Ford‐Gilboe, Colleen Varcoe, Kelly Scott‐Storey, Annette J. Browne, Susan M. Jack, Kimberley T. Jackson, Tara Mantler, Sue O’Donnell, Noël Patten-Lu, Victoria Smye, C. Nadine Wathen, Nancy Perrin

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntimate Partner and Family Violence
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionQuality of life (healthcare)Context (archaeology)Domestic violencePoison controlBiostatisticsIntervention (counseling)Suicide preventionPublic healthHealth promotionOccupational safety and healthGerontologyNursingEnvironmental healthSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) threatens the safety, health and quality of life of women worldwide. Comprehensive IPV interventions that are tailored, take a long-term view of women's needs, including health concerns, and maximize choice and control, have the potential to effectively address heath and safety concerns. Few such interventions have been tested, including in the Canadian context. METHODS: A parallel randomized controlled trial of adult (age 19 + years), English-speaking, Canadian women with histories of IPV randomized either to iHEAL, a tailored health promotion intervention delivered by Registered Nurses over 6-7 months, or to community service information (usual care control). Primary (Quality of Life, PTSD symptoms) and secondary outcomes (Depression, Confidence in Managing Daily Life, Chronic Pain, IPV Severity) were measured at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 months post-intervention via an online survey. Generalized estimating equations were used to test for differences by study arm in intention-to-treat (full sample) and per protocol (1 + iHEAL visit) analyses focussing on short-term (immediately post-intervention) and longer-term (1 year post-intervention) effects. Selected process evaluation data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 331 women enrolled, 175 were randomized to iHEAL (135 who engaged in 1 + visits) and 156 to control. Women who received iHEAL showed significantly greater short-term improvement in Quality of Life compared to the control group, with these effects maintained 1 year later. Changes in PTSD Symptoms also differed significantly by group, with weaker initial effects that were stronger 1 year post-intervention. Significant moderate, short- and longer-term group effects were also observed for Depression and Confidence in Managing Daily Life. IPV Severity decreased for both groups, with significant immediate effects in favour of the intervention group that grew stronger 1 year post-intervention. There were no changes in Chronic Pain. CONCLUSION: iHEAL is an effective, acceptable and safe intervention for diverse groups of women with histories of IPV. Trial results provide a foundation for implementation and ongoing evaluation in health care settings and systems. Delayed effects noted for PTSD Symptoms and IPV Severity suggest that longer-term assessment of these outcomes may be needed in trials of IPV interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT03573778 (Registered on June 29, 2018).

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicIntimate Partner and Family ViolenceFrench-language works237,207