ArticleThe Journal of pediatrics2023
Evaluation of Children after Caregiver Intimate Partner Violence: A Qualitative Study of Barriers, Facilitators, and Trauma- and Violence-Informed Care.
Article in The Journal of pediatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Increasing familial engagement in family violence services: a systematically conducted realist review of barriers and facilitators.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Injuries in Children Undergoing Subspecialty Abuse Evaluations Because of Intimate Partner Violence.Pediatrics open science · 2026Article
- Healthcare services in the intersectoral coping of domestic violence against children: a scoping review.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Acceptability and feasibility of trauma- and violence-informed care for intimate partner violence.Child abuse & neglect · 2024Article
- Frequency of injuries in a voluntary program evaluating young children exposed to intimate partner violence.Child abuse & neglect · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo identify barriers and facilitators of evaluating children exposed to caregiver intimate partner violence (IPV) and develop a strategy to optimize the evaluation. STUDY
designUsing the EPIS (Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainment) framework, we conducted qualitative interviews of 49 stakeholders, including emergency department clinicians (n = 18), child abuse pediatricians (n = 15), child protective services staff (n = 12), and caregivers who experienced IPV (n = 4), and reviewed meeting minutes of a family violence community advisory board (CAB). Researchers coded and analyzed interviews and CAB minutes using the constant comparative method of grounded theory. Codes were expanded and revised until a final structure emerged.
resultsFour themes emerged: (1) benefits of evaluation, including the opportunity to assess children for physical abuse and to engage caregivers; (2) barriers, including limited evidence about the risk of abuse in these children, burdening a resource-limited system, and the complexity of IPV; (3) facilitators, including collaboration between medical and IPV providers; and (4) recommendations for trauma- and violence-informed care (TVIC) in which a child's evaluation is leveraged to link caregivers with an IPV advocate to address the caregiver's needs.
conclusionsRoutine evaluation of IPV-exposed children may lead to the detection of physical abuse and linkage to services for the child and the caregiver. Collaboration, improved data on the risk of child physical abuse in the context of IPV and implementation of TVIC may improve outcomes for families experiencing IPV.
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.