ArticleJAMA network open2023
Screening for Intimate Partner Violence Experience and Use in the Veterans Health Administration.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rates and Patterns of Intimate Partner Violence Among Service Members and Veterans.Journal of interpersonal violence · 2026Article
- Clinicians' Decisions to Screen for Intimate Partner Violence Use and Experience and Observed Impacts: Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Risk and protective factors for incidents of intimate partner violence among active-duty military personnel.PloS one · 2026Article
- Military-to-Civilian Transition Stressors Associated With Couples' Intimate Partner Violence.Psychology of violence · 2026Article
- Sex Differences in Intimate Partner Violence Lethality Risk Screening Administration and Outcomes.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Mental and physical health, impulse control, and intimate partner violence within a veteran sample.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- The questions on violence (FOV) tool for interpersonal violence inquiry in Swedish healthcare settings - evaluation of content validity, face validity and test-retest reliability.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Childhood Histories of Family Violence and Adult Intimate Partner Violence Use Among U.S. Military Veterans.Psychology of violence · 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
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The practice of screening women for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health care settings has been a critical part of responding to this major public health problem. Yet, IPV prevention would be enhanced with detection efforts that extend beyond screening for IPV experiences to identifying those who use violence in relationships as well. Objective: To determine rates of IPV experiences and use (ie, among perpetrators of IPV) and factors associated with disclosures among adult patients seeking mental health services at the Veterans Health Administration. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used electronic medical record data drawn from a quality improvement initiative at 5 Veterans Health Administration medical centers conducted between November 2021 and February 2022 to examine IPV disclosures following concurrent screening for IPV experience and use. Participants included patients engaged in mental health services. Data were analyzed in April and May 2023. Exposure: Mental health clinicians were trained to screen for IPV experience and use concurrently and instructed to screen all patients encountered through routine mental health care visits during a 3-month period. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest were past-year prevalence of IPV use and experience, sociodemographic characteristics, and clinical diagnoses among screened patients. Results: A total of 200 patients were offered IPV screening. Of 155 participants (mean [SD] age, 52.45 [15.65] years; 124 [80.0%] men) with completed screenings, 74 (47.7%) denied past-year IPV experience and use, 76 (49.0%) endorsed past-year IPV experience, and 72 (46.4%) endorsed past-year IPV use, including 67 participants (43.2%) who reported IPV experience and use concurrently; only 9 participants (5.8%) endorsed unidirectional IPV experiences and 5 participants (3.2%) endorsed unidirectional IPV use. Patients who reported past-year IPV experience and use were younger than those who denied IPV (experience: mean difference, -7.34 [95% CI, 2.51-12.17] years; use: mean difference, -7.20 [95% CI, 2.40-12.00] years). Patients with a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis were more likely to report IPV use (43 patients [59.7%]) than those without a posttraumatic stress disorder diagnosis (29 patients [40.3%]; odds ratio, 2.14; [95% CI, 1.12-4.06]). No other demographic characteristics or clinical diagnoses were associated with IPV use or experience. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of IPV rates and associated factors, screening for IPV found high rates of both IPV experience and use among patients receiving mental health care. These findings highlight the benefit of screening for IPV experience and use concurrently across gender and age. Additionally, the associations found between PTSD and IPV use underscore the importance of strengthening and developing additional targeted treatment for 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.