Trial reportBMJ open2020
Two-year follow up of a cluster randomised controlled trial for women experiencing intimate partner violence: effect of screening and family doctor-delivered counselling on quality of life, mental and physical health and abuse exposure.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Service preferences among postpartum women (non-)affected by different types of intimate partner violence: insights from the cross-sectional study INVITE.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Bystander Intervention in Coercive Control: Do Relationship to the Victim, Bystander Gender, and Concerns Influence Willingness to Intervene?Journal of interpersonal violence · 2024Article
- Leveraging Integrated Primary Care to Enhance the Health System Response to IPV: Moving toward Primary Prevention Primary Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The impact of interventions to reduce risk and incidence of intimate partner violence and sexual violence in conflict and post-conflict states and other humanitarian crises in low and middle income countries: a systematic review.Conflict and health · 2021Review
- Longitudinal Curricular Assessment of Knowledge and Awareness of Intimate Partner Violence among First-Year Dental Students.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Innovations in implementing a health systems response to violence against women in 3 tertiary hospitals of Maharashtra India: Improving provider capacity and facility readiness.Implementation research and practiceArticle
- Structural and construct validity of the Quality of Life Scale among Canadian women with histories of intimate partner violence.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis was a 2-year follow-up study of a primary care-based counselling intervention (weave) for women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). We aimed to assess whether differences in depression found at 12 months (lower depression for intervention than control participants) would be sustained at 24 months and differences in quality in life, general mental and physical health and IPV would emerge.
designCluster randomised controlled trial. Researchers blinded to allocation. Unit of randomisation: family doctors.
settingFifty-two primary care clinics, Victoria, Australia.
participantsBaseline: 272 English-speaking, female patients (intervention n=137, doctors=35; control n=135, doctors=37), who screened positive for fear of partner in past 12 months. Twenty-four-month response rates: intervention 59% (81/137), control 63% (85/135).
interventionsIntervention doctors received training to deliver brief, woman-centred counselling. Intervention patients were invited to receive this counselling (uptake rate: 49%). Control doctors received standard IPV information; delivered usual care. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Twenty-four months primary outcomes: WHO Quality of Life-Bref dimensions, Short-Form Health Survey (SF-12) mental health. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SF-12 physical health and caseness for depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale), post-traumatic stress disorder (Check List-Civilian), IPV (Composite Abuse Scale), physical symptoms (≥6 in last month). Data collected through postal survey. Mixed-effects regressions adjusted for location (rural/urban) and clustering.
resultsNo differences detected between groups on quality of life (physical: 1.5, 95% CI -2.9 to 5.9; psychological: -0.2, 95% CI -4.8 to 4.4,; social: -1.4, 95% CI -8.2 to 5.4; environmental: -0.8, 95% CI -4.0 to 2.5), mental health status (-1.6, 95% CI -5.3 to 2.1) or secondary outcomes. Both groups improved on primary outcomes, IPV, anxiety.
conclusionsIntervention was no more effective than usual care in improving 2-year quality of life, mental and physical health and IPV, despite differences in depression at 12 months. Future refinement and testing of type, duration and intensity of primary care IPV interventions is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12608000032358.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.