Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32085771›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

"From taboo to routine": a qualitative evaluation of a hospital-based advocacy intervention for domestic violence and abuse.

Sandi Dheensa, Gemma Halliwell, Jennifer Daw, Sue K Jones, Gene Feder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Domestic abuse among female doctors: thematic analysis of qualitative interviews in the UK.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2021
    Article
  15. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

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. sandi.dheensa@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6412-696X
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.
Jennifer DawSafelives, Suite 2a, Whitefriars, Lewins Mead, Bristol, BS1 2NT, UK.
Sue K JonesSafelives, 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.
University of Bristol · GBAt Bristol · GB

Funding

Oak Foundation n/a
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth services are often the first point of professional contact for people who have experienced domestic violence and abuse. We report on the evaluation of a multi-site, hospital-based advocacy intervention for survivors of domestic violence and abuse. Independent Domestic Violence Advisors (IDVAs), who provide survivors with support around safety, criminal justice, and health and wellbeing, were located in five hospitals in England between 2012 and 2015 in emergency departments and maternity services. We present views about IDVAs' approaches to tackling domestic violence and abuse, how the IDVA service worked in practice, and factors that hindered and facilitated engagement with survivors.

methodsWe adopted a convenience sampling approach and invited participation from all who offered to take part within the study timeframe. Sixty-four healthcare professionals, IDVAs, IDVA service managers, and commissioners at all sites were interviewed. Interviews were analysed using a thematic approach: familiarising ourselves with the data through repeated readings and noting initial ideas; generating initial codes through double coding notable features of the data across the dataset; collating codes into potential themes; and reviewing themes to ensure they captured the essence of the data.

resultsTwo key themes emerged. The first was Hospital-based IDVAs fulfil several crucial roles. This theme highlighted that healthcare professionals thought the hospital-based IDVA service was valuable because it enhanced their skills, knowledge, and confidence in asking about domestic violence and abuse. It enabled them to immediately refer and provide support to patients who might have otherwise been lost along a referral pathway. It also reached survivors who might otherwise have remained hidden. The second theme was Success hinges on a range of structural factors. This theme illustrated the importance of ongoing domestic violence and abuse training for staff, the IDVA having private and dedicated space, and the service being embedded in hospital infrastructure (e.g. featuring it in hospital-wide policies and enabling IDVAs access to medical records).

conclusionHospital-based IDVAs offer a unique and valued way to respond to domestic violence and abuse in a healthcare setting. Further work must now be done to explore how to implement the service sustainably.

Indexed as

HospitalsPatient AdvocacyAdultDiagnostic Tests, RoutineDomestic ViolenceEmergency Service, HospitalEnglandFemaleHealth Services ResearchHumansMalePregnancyQualitative ResearchSurvivorsTabooAdvocacyDomestic violenceEmergency medicineHealthHealth personnelHealth servicesIntimate partner violenceMidwifery

Identifiers

PMID32085771
PMCPMC7035753
OpenAlexW3006980799

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.