Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37503785›Full record

ArticleJournal of primary care & community health

Improving Domestic Violence Screening and Follow-Up in a Community Health Clinic.

Katherine Collins, Silviya Kochuparambil Sebastian, Gwyneth Franck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine CollinsThe University of Wisconsin Madison School of Nursing, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2771-5730
Silviya Kochuparambil SebastianThe University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, USA.
Gwyneth FranckThe University of Illinois at Chicago College of Nursing, USA.
University of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo implement an improved DV screening and follow-up protocol at a suburban community health clinic that is consistently used by staff with appropriate female patients as well as to assess provider/staff barriers to this.

methodsThe project was completed at a community health clinic and included 2 presentations: the first to outline current practices as well as the intervention plan at the pre-intervention time point and then to review results of the intervention and elicit feedback post intervention. Provider/staff barrier surveys were completed at both time points. The intervention consisted of completion of the HITS DV screening tool on all appropriate female patients and a system-level algorithm-based follow-up care plan for positive cases.

resultsEligible patient screening increased by 3.1% and patients screening positive increased from 0 to 1 from baseline to intervention. Average scores on the barrier surveys improved for all questions and improved significantly for 3 of the questions. The algorithm implemented was utilized for the positive screening.

conclusionsUse of a DV screening tool, that has shown good concurrent and construct validity in the literature, a system-level algorithm for follow-up care and addressing provider/staff barriers to screening and follow-up are essential components of a successful DV screening and follow-up program.

Indexed as

Domestic ViolencePublic HealthAmbulatory Care FacilitiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMass Screeningcommunity healthdomestic violenceintimate partner violence

Identifiers

PMID37503785
PMCPMC10387764
OpenAlexW4385331090

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.