Observational studyBMJ open2016
Outcomes of domestic violence screening at an acute London trust: are there missed opportunities for intervention?
Observational study in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- Missed opportunities in health sector responses to violence against women and girls: a comparative mixed-methods study in Albania and Brazil.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- A hospital-based independent domestic violence advisor service: demand and response during the Covid-19 pandemic.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: An implementation-oriented systematic review.Implementation research and practice · 2021Article
- Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to Facilitate Violence Screening in HIV Care Settings: a Review of the Literature.Current HIV/AIDS reports · 2021Review
- Boundary-Work and the Distribution of Care for Survivors of Domestic Violence and Abuse in Primary Care Settings: Perspectives From U.K. Clinicians.Qualitative health research · 2021Article
- "From taboo to routine": a qualitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Cry for health: a quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in primary care: protocol for a mixed method evaluation of the implementation of a complex intervention.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Improving the healthcare response to domestic violence and abuse in sexual health clinics: feasibility study of a training, support and referral intervention.Sexually transmitted infections · 2018Article
- Identifying domestic violence and sexual assault presentations at a regional Australian hospital emergency department: Comparative analysis of domestic violence and sexual assault cases.Women's health (London, England)Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDomestic violence screening is advocated in some healthcare settings. Evidence that it increases referral to support agencies or improves health outcomes is limited. This study aimed to (1) investigate the proportion of hospital patients reporting domestic violence, (2) describe characteristics and previous hospital attendances of affected patients and (3) assess referrals to an in-house domestic violence advisor from Camden Safety Net.
designA series of observational studies.
settingThree outpatient clinics at the Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust.
participants10,158 patients screened for domestic violence in community gynaecology, genitourinary medicine (GUM) and HIV medicine clinics between 1 October 2013 and 30 June 2014. Also 2253 Camden Safety Net referrals over the same period.
main outcome measures(1) Percentage reporting domestic violence by age group gender, ethnicity and clinic. (2) Rates of hospital attendances in the past 3 years for those screening positive and negative. (3) Characteristics, uptake and risk assessment results for hospital in-house domestic violence referrals compared with Camden Safety Net referrals from other sources.
resultsOf the 10,158 patients screened, 57.4% were female with a median age of 30 years. Overall, 7.1% reported ever-experiencing domestic violence, ranging from 5.7% in GUM to 29.4% in HIV services. People screening positive for domestic violence had higher rates of previous emergency department attendances (rate ratio (RR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.48), emergency inpatient admissions (RR 2.27, 95% CI 1.37 to 3.84) and day-case admissions (RR 2.03, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.43) than those screening negative. The 77 hospital referrals to the hospital-based domestic violence advisor during the study period were more likely to be taken up and to be classified as high risk than referrals from elsewhere.
conclusionsSelective screening for domestic violence in high-risk hospital clinic populations has the potential to identify affected patients and promote good uptake of referrals for in-house domestic violence support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.