Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31664906›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2019

Longitudinal inconsistency in responses to survey items that ask women about intimate partner violence.

Deborah Loxton, Jennifer Powers, Natalie Townsend, Melissa L Harris, Peta Forder

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Deborah LoxtonResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. Deborah.Loxton@newcastle.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-4745-8612
Jennifer PowersResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Natalie TownsendResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Melissa L HarrisResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Peta ForderResearch Centre for Generational Health and Ageing, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal research has demonstrated that experiences of abuse and adversity are not consistently reported over time; however, there is a paucity of available evidence regarding the consistency of reporting experiences of intimate partner violence (IPV) over time. This study aimed to investigate the consistency of self-reported IPV involving a partner or spouse. Differences in the health status of women according to consistency of IPV reporting was also investigated.

methodsSurvey data collected from the 1946-51 cohort of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH) between 1996 and 2016 were used (n = 13,715). Consistency of self-reported IPV was evaluated by responses to the question "Have you ever been in a violent relationship with a partner/spouse?" Demographic and health characteristics of consistent and inconsistent reporters of IPV were compared. Multinomial logistic regression was used to determine the strength of the association between demographic and health characteristics of the women and their consistency of longitudinal reporting of IPV.

resultsThere were 10,966 women who answered IPV questions over six surveys, with 9610 women (87.6%) providing consistent responses. Inconsistent responses were provided by 1356 women (12.4%), of whom 258 (2.4%) reported IPV at all but one survey (Mainly IPV), 587 (5.3%) reported no IPV at all but one survey (Mainly no IPV), and 511 (4.7%) reported Mixed IPV responses over time. Women in the Mainly IPV group, and those in the Mixed IPV group were similar to those in the Consistent IPV group in demographic and health characteristics, whereas women in the Mainly no IPV group were similar to those in the Consistent never IPV group.

conclusionsIPV data collected at one time point may involve around 12% false negative or false positive responses. To increase reliability, IPV should be measured on more than one occasion, using different techniques and methods that account for intentional and unintentional over- and under-reporting.

Indexed as

Sexual PartnersAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIntimate Partner ViolenceLogistic ModelsReproducibility of ResultsRisk FactorsSelf ReportSpouse AbuseSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung AdultCohort studiesIntimate partner violenceLongitudinal studiesReliabilityResponse consistencySelf reportSurveys and questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID31664906
PMCPMC6819634

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.