Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33435891›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2021

Reaching everyone in general practice? Feasibility of an integrated domestic violence training and support intervention in primary care.

Eszter Szilassy, Jessica Roy, Emma Williamson, Katherine Pitt, Mei-See Man, Gene Feder

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. General practice as a place to receive help for domestic abuse during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in England and Wales.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Dentists' Competence and Knowledge on Domestic Violence and How to Improve It-A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Eszter SzilassyCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK. eszter.szilassy@bristol.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6267-0531
Jessica RoySchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Emma WilliamsonSchool for Policy Studies, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Katherine PittCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
Mei-See ManNorwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Gene FederCentre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol, BS8 2PS, UK.
University of Bristol · GBAt Bristol · GBUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0614-20012Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0614-20012
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrimary care needs to respond effectively to patients experiencing or perpetrating domestic violence and abuse (DVA) and their children, but there is uncertainty about the value of integrated programmes. The aim of the study was to develop and test the feasibility of an integrated primary care system-level training and support intervention, called IRIS+ (Enhanced Identification and Referral to Improve Safety), for all patients affected by DVA. IRIS+ was an adaptation of the original IRIS (Identification and Referral to Improve Safety) model designed to reach female survivors of DVA.

methodsObservation of training; pre/post intervention questionnaires with clinicians and patients; data extracted from medical records and DVA agency; semi-structured interviews with clinicians, service providers and referred adults and children. Data collection took place between May 2017 and April 2018. Mixed method analysis was undertaken to triangulate data from various sources to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention.

resultsClinicians and service providers believed that the IRIS+ intervention had filled a service gap and was a valuable resource in identifying and referring women, men and children affected by DVA. Despite increased levels of preparedness reported by clinicians after training in managing the complexity of DVA in their practice, the intervention proved to be insufficient to catalyse identification and specialist referral of men and direct identification and referral (without their non-abusive parents) of children and young people. The study also revealed that reports provided to general practice by other agencies are important sources of information about adult and children patients affected by DVA. However, in the absence of guidance about how to use this information in patient care, there are uncertainties and variation in practice.

conclusionsThe study demonstrates that the IRIS+ intervention is not feasible in the form and timeframe we evaluated. Further adaptation is required to achieve identification and referral of men and children in primary care: an enhanced focus on engagement with men, direct engagement with children, and improved guidance and training on responding to reports of DVA received from other agencies.

Indexed as

Domestic ViolenceGeneral PracticeAdolescentAdultChildFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMalePrimary Health CareReferral and ConsultationChildren and young peopleDomestic violence and abuseFeasibility studyGeneral practiceInterventionMale and female perpetratorsMale and female victimsPrimary careTraining

Identifiers

PMID33435891
PMCPMC7802315
OpenAlexW3096237966

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.