Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34107941›Full record

ReviewBMC health services research2021

Personal barriers to addressing intimate partner abuse: a qualitative meta-synthesis of healthcare practitioners' experiences.

Laura Tarzia, Jacqui Cameron, Jotara Watson, Renee Fiolet, Surriya Baloch, Rebecca Robertson, Minerva Kyei-Onanjiri, Gemma McKibbin, Kelsey Hegarty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

9 authors.

Laura Tarzia *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. laura.tarzia@unimelb.edu.au.
Jacqui Cameron *Department of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jotara WatsonDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Renee FioletDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Surriya BalochDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Rebecca RobertsonDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Minerva Kyei-OnanjiriDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Gemma McKibbinDepartment of Social Work, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kelsey HegartyDepartment of General Practice, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealthcare practitioners (HCPs) play a crucial role in recognising, responding to, and supporting female patients experiencing intimate partner abuse (IPA). However, research consistently identifies barriers they perceive prevent them from doing this work effectively. These barriers can be system-based (e.g. lack of time or training) or personal/individual. This review of qualitative evidence aims to synthesise the personal barriers that impact HCPs' responses to IPA.

methodsFive databases were searched in March 2020. Studies needed to utilise qualitative methods for both data collection and analysis and be published between 2010 and 2020 in order to qualify for inclusion; however, we considered any type of healthcare setting in any country. Article screening, data extraction and methodological appraisal using a modified version of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program checklist for qualitative studies were undertaken by at least two independent reviewers. Data analysis drew on Thomas and Harden's thematic synthesis approach.

resultsTwenty-nine studies conducted in 20 countries informed the final review. A variety of HCPs and settings were represented. Three themes were developed that describe the personal barriers experienced by HCPs: I can't interfere (which describes the belief that IPA is a "private matter" and HCPs' fears of causing harm by intervening); I don't have control (highlighting HCPs' frustration when women do not follow their advice); and I won't take responsibility (which illuminates beliefs that addressing IPA should be someone else's job).

conclusionThis review highlights the need for training to address personal issues in addition to structural or organisational barriers. Education and training for HCPs needs to: encourage reflection on their own values to reinforce their commitment to addressing IPA; teach HCPs to relinquish the need to control outcomes so that they can adopt an advocacy approach; and support HCPs' trust in the critical role they can play in responding. Future research should explore effective ways to do this within the context of complex healthcare organisations.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelIntimate Partner ViolenceDelivery of Health CareFemaleHealth FacilitiesHumansQualitative ResearchBarriersHealth practitionersIntimate partner violenceQualitative meta-synthesis

Identifiers

PMID34107941
PMCPMC8191204

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.