ArticleJournal of neurosciences in rural practice
Development of preparedness to respond to intimate partner violence scale among mental health professionals.
Article in Journal of neurosciences in rural practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Violence against women has been associated with serious health and mental health consequences. Health-care professionals play an important role in screening and providing care and support to victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the hospital setting. There is no culturally relevant tool to assess the mental health professional (MHP) preparedness to screen for partner violence in the clinical setting. This research aimed towards developing and standardizing scale to measure MHP preparedness and perceived skills in responding to IPV in the clinical setting. Materials and Methods: The scale was field tested with 200 subjects using consecutive sampling at a tertiary care hospital. Results: The exploratory factor analysis resulted in five factors constituting 59.2% of the total variance. The internal consistency Cronbach alpha 0.72 for the final 32-item scale was highly reliable and adequate. Conclusion: The final version of the Preparedness to Respond to IPV (PR-IPV) scale measures MHP PR-IPV in the clinical setting. Further, the scale can be used to evaluate the outcome of IPV interventions in different settings.
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.