Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31638998›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Cry for health: a quantitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.

Gemma Halliwell, Sandi Dheensa, Elisabetta Fenu, Sue K Jones, Jessica Asato, Suzanne Jacob, Gene Feder

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 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
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

7 authors.

Gemma HalliwellDomestic Violence/Abuse and Health Research Group (DVAHG), Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. gemma.halliwell@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1094-0007
Sandi DheensaDomestic Violence/Abuse and Health Research Group (DVAHG), Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Elisabetta FenuRoyal College of Physicians, 11 Saint Andrews Place Regent's Park, London, NW1 4LE, UK.
Sue K JonesSafelives, Suite 2a, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Jessica AsatoSafelives, Suite 2a, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Suzanne JacobSafelives, Suite 2a, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Gene FederDomestic Violence/Abuse and Health Research Group (DVAHG), Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDomestic violence and abuse (DVA) damages the health of survivors and increases use of healthcare services. We report findings from a multi-site evaluation of hospital-based advocacy services, designed to support survivors attending emergency departments and maternity services.

methodsIndependent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVA) were co-located in five UK hospitals. Case-level data were collected at T1 (initial referral) and T2 (case closure) from survivors accessing hospital (T1 N = 692; T2 N = 476) and community IDVA services (T1 N = 3544; T2 N = 2780), used as a comparator. Measures included indicators of sociodemographic characteristics, experience of abuse, health service use, health and safety outcomes. Multivariate analyses tested for differences in changes in abuse, health and factors influencing safety outcomes. Health service use data in the 6 months pre-and post- intervention were compared to generate potential cost savings by hospital IDVA services.

resultsHospital IDVAs worked with survivors less visible to community IDVA services and facilitated intervention at an earlier point. Hospital IDVAs received higher referrals from health services and enabled access to a greater number of health resources. Hospital survivors were more likely to report greater reductions in and cessation of abuse. No differences were observed in health outcomes for hospital survivors. The odds of safety increased two-fold if hospital survivors received over five contacts with an IDVA or accessed six or more resources / programmes over a longer period of time. Six months preceding IDVA intervention, hospital survivors cost on average £2463 each in use of health services; community survivors cost £533 each. The cost savings observed among hospital survivors amounted to a total of £2050 per patient per year. This offset the average cost of providing hospital IDVA services.

conclusionsHospital IDVAs can identify survivors not visible to other services and promote safety through intensive support and access to resources. The co-location of IDVAs within the hospital encouraged referrals to other health services and wider community agencies. Further research is required to establish the cost-effectiveness of hospital IDVA services, however our findings suggest these services could be an efficient use of health service resources.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHospitals, MaternityPatient AdvocacyAdultCrime VictimsDomestic ViolenceEvaluation Studies as TopicFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansMaleSurvivorsAccident and emergency (ED)AdvocacyDomestic violence and abuseHealthcare responseIntimate partner violence

Identifiers

PMID31638998
PMCPMC6805459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.