Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30734100›Full record

ReviewCurrent psychiatry reports2019

Identification and Management of Domestic and Sexual Violence in Primary Care in the #MeToo Era: an Update.

Kelsey Hegarty, Laura Tarzia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current psychiatry reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  13. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kelsey HegartyDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, 200 Berkeley Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3058, Australia. k.hegarty@unimelb.edu.au.
Laura TarziaDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, 200 Berkeley Street, Carlton, Victoria, 3058, Australia.
University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWe discuss recent evidence around the identification and response to domestic and sexual violence in primary care for perpetrators and victims, in the context of feminist social media movements such as #MeToo. RECENT

findingsThere is no recent research on identification and response to perpetrators in health settings. There is some limited recent evidence for how health settings can address domestic and sexual violence for female victims and their children. Recent studies of mixed quality focus on advocacy and empowerment, integrated interventions (with alcohol and drug misuse) and couples counselling for domestic violence and cognitive behavioural or processing therapy for sexual violence. Further research on perpetrator interventions in primary care is urgent. Larger sample sizes and a focus on sexual violence are needed to develop the evidence base for female survivors. Clinicians need to ask about violence and provide a first-line response depending on the patient's needs.

Indexed as

Couples TherapyDomestic ViolenceFemaleHumansPrimary Health CareSex OffensesDomestic violenceHealth settingsInterventionsPartner abuseSocial media

Identifiers

PMID30734100
OpenAlexW2914673652

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.