ArticlePloS one2022
Evaluating the effectiveness of a mobile application to improve the quality, collection, and usability of forensic documentation of sexual violence.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Verification of the persistence of sperm traces under different chain-of-custody conditions. Care pathway and justice for victims of sexual violence and abuse.Forensic science, medicine, and pathology · 2026Article
- General data protection regulation: an algorithmic proposal for forensic photography.International journal of legal medicine · 2026Review
- Health Information Technology Documentation and Referrals for Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Assault.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurvivors of sexual violence deserve timely and high-quality forensic examination, evidence collection, and documentation as part of comprehensive care. However, in many countries, the quality of medical-legal documentation is severely limited. MediCapt is an innovative digital application that enables clinicians to document forensic medical evidence as well as capture and securely store forensic photographs of injuries. This study evaluated the effectiveness and usability of MediCapt to document forensic medical evidence of sexual violence.
methodsThis mixed-methods evaluation involved key-informant interviews, usability questionnaires, and forensic record reviews. Participants included clinicians, medical records personnel, information technology personnel, and health facility administrators, as well as law enforcement and legal professionals in Kenya.
resultsThe Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) data quality checklist found that using MediCapt led to significantly higher data-quality scores compared to paper-based forms. MediCapt forms scored higher on 23 of 26 checklist items. While a wide difference in quality was seen among paper-based forms, MediCapt appeared to both standardize and improve quality of documentation across sites. MediCapt strengths included data security and confidentiality, accuracy and efficiency, and supplemental documentation with photography. Weaknesses included infrastructure challenges, required technological proficiencies, and time to learn the new system. Although it is early to assess the impact of MediCapt on prosecutions, providers and law and justice sector professionals were optimistic about its usefulness. They identified MediCapt as appropriate for use with survivors of sexual violence and reported MediCapt's legibility and photography features had already been commended by the court.
conclusionMediCapt was well-received across all sectors, its use was perceived as feasible and sustainable, and it significantly improved the quality of collected forensic data. It is anticipated this improvement in forensic documentation will increase successful prosecutions, strengthen accountability for perpetrators, and improve justice for survivors.
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.