Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34556068›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

Validity of the ACTS intimate partner violence screen in antenatal care: a cross sectional study.

K Hegarty, J Spangaro, M Kyei-Onanjiri, J Valpied, J Walsh, J Chapman, J Koziol-McLain

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 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
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

K HegartyDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne (and The Royal Women's Hospital), 780 Elizabeth St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. k.hegarty@unimelb.edu.au.
J SpangaroSchool of Health and Society Wollongong, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Wollongong, Australia.
M Kyei-OnanjiriDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne (and The Royal Women's Hospital), 780 Elizabeth St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
J ValpiedDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne (and The Royal Women's Hospital), 780 Elizabeth St, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
J WalshSchool of Health and Society Wollongong, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Wollongong, Australia.
J ChapmanThe Royal Women's Hospital, Centre for Family Violence Prevention, 20 Flemington Rd, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
J Koziol-McLainSchool of Clinical Sciences Auckland, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Royal Women's Hospital · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AUAuckland University of Technology · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a major public health problem with harmful consequences. In Australia, there is no national standard screening tool and screening practice is variable across states. The objectives of this study were to assess in the antenatal healthcare setting: i) the validity of a new IPV brief screening tool and ii) women's preference for screening response format, screening frequency and comfort level.

methodsOne thousand sixty-seven antenatal patients in a major metropolitan Victorian hospital in Australia completed a paper-based, self-administered survey. The survey included four screening items about whether they were Afraid/Controlled/Threatened/Slapped or physically hurt (ACTS) by a partner or ex-partner in the last 12 months; and the Composite Abuse Scale (reference standard). The ACTS screen was presented firstly with a binary yes/no response format and then with a five-point ordinal frequency format from 'never' (0) to 'very frequently' (4). The main outcome measures were test statistics of the four-item ACTS screening tool (sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and area under the curve) against the reference standard and women's screening preferences.

resultsTwelve-month IPV prevalence varied depending on the ACTS response format with 8% (83) positive on ACTS yes/no format, 12.8% (133) positive on ACTS ordinal frequency format and 10.5% (108) on the reference Composite Abuse Scale. Overall, the ACTS screening tool demonstrated clinical utility for the ordinal frequency format (AUC, 0.80; 95% CI = 0.76 to 0.85) and the binary yes/no format (AUC, 0.74, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.79). The frequency scale (66%) had greater sensitivity than the yes/no scale (51%). The positive and negative predictive values were 56 and 96% for the frequency scale and 68 and 95% for the yes/no scale. Specificity was high regardless of screening question response options. Half (53%) of the women categorised as abused preferred the yes/no scale. Around half of the women (48%, 472) thought health care providers should ask pregnant women about IPV at every visit.

conclusionsThe four-item ACTS tool (using the frequency scale and a cut-off of one on any item) is recommended for written self-administered screening of women to identify those experiencing IPV to enable first-line response and follow-up.

Indexed as

Intimate Partner ViolenceSpouse AbuseCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansPregnancyPrenatal CareAntenatal careDomestic violenceIntimate partner violencePregnancyRoutine screeningScreening tool

Identifiers

PMID34556068
PMCPMC8461928
OpenAlexW3134197945

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.