Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423623›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2018

Women's Healthcare Utilization Following Routine Screening for Past-Year Intimate Partner Violence in the Veterans Health Administration.

Melissa E Dichter, Anneliese E Sorrentino, Terri N Haywood, Scarlett L Bellamy, Elina Medvedeva, Christopher B Roberts, Katherine M Iverson

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Melissa E DichterCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA. Melissa.Dichter@va.gov.
Anneliese E SorrentinoCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Terri N HaywoodCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Scarlett L BellamyDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Drexel University Dornsife School of Public Health, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Elina MedvedevaCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Christopher B RobertsCenter for Health Equity Research and Promotion, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Katherine M IversonWomen's Health Sciences Division, National Center for PTSD, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA.
United States Department of Veterans Affairs · USDrexel University · USVA Boston Healthcare System · US

Funding

HSRD VA I01 HX001905
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundExperience of intimate partner violence (IPV) can have adverse health impacts and has been associated with elevated rates of healthcare service utilization. Healthcare encounters present opportunities to identify IPV-related concerns and connect patients with services. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) conducts IPV screening within an integrated healthcare system.

objectiveThe objectives of this study were to compare service utilization in the 6 months following IPV screening between those screening positive and negative for past-year IPV (IPV+, IPV-) and to examine the timing and types of healthcare services accessed among women screening IPV+.

designA retrospective chart review was conducted for 8888 female VHA patients across 13 VHA facilities who were screened for past-year IPV between April 2014 and April 2016. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic characteristics (age, race, ethnicity, marital status, veteran status), IPV screening response, and healthcare encounters (based on visit identification codes). KEY

resultsIn the 6 months following routine screening for past-year IPV, patients screening IPV+ were more likely to utilize outpatient care (aOR = 1.85 [CI 1.26, 2.70]), including primary care or psychosocial care, and to have an inpatient stay (aOR = 2.09 [CI 1.23, 3.57]), compared with patients screening IPV-. Among those with any utilization, frequency of outpatient encounters within the 6-month period following screening was higher among those screening IPV+ compared with those screening IPV-. The majority of patients screening positive for past-year IPV returned for an outpatient visit within a brief time frame following the screening visit (> 70% within 14 days, >95% within 6 months). More than one in four patients screening IPV+ had an emergency department visit within the 6 months following screening.

conclusionsWomen who screen positive for past-year IPV have high rates of return to outpatient visits following screening, presenting opportunities for follow-up support. Higher rates of emergency department utilization and inpatient stays among women screening IPV+ may indicate adverse health outcomes related to IPV experience.

Indexed as

Hospitals, VeteransUnited States Department of Veterans AffairsAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareRetrospective StudiesSpouse AbuseUnited StatesVeteransintimate partner violenceservice utilizationVeterans Health Administration

Identifiers

PMID29423623
PMCPMC5975147
OpenAlexW2791475461

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.