ArticleBMC primary care2024
COVID-19 adaptations to a training and support programme to improve primary care response to domestic abuse: a mixed methods rapid study.
Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathways to Safety: A qualitative evaluation of an Australian domestic violence training program for primary care.BMC primary care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncreased incidence and/or reporting of domestic abuse (DA) accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. National lockdowns and enforced social isolation necessitated new ways of supporting victims of DA remotely. Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) is a programme to improve the response to domestic abuse in general practice, providing training for general practice teams and support for patients affected by DA, which has previously been proven effective and cost-effective [1-3]. The COVID-19 pandemic required the adaptation of the programme to online training and remote support.
methodsThis study is mixed methods rapid research, which aimed to gather evidence around the relevance, desirability and acceptability of IRIS operating remotely. Quantitative IRIS referral data were triangulated with data from four surveys and 15 interviews. Participants were local IRIS teams, IRIS-trained clinicians, and victim-survivors supported by IRIS services. The study was designed using the Lean Impact approach, allowing quick evaluation of innovation and the impact of social interventions. We carried out a framework analysis of the interviews, which is a qualitative methodology widely used in policy and applied research that enables research teams to move from descriptive accounts to a conceptual explanation of findings [4, 5].
resultsWe found that the adaptation to online training and support of IRIS was acceptable and desirable. Most clinicians felt confident addressing DA over the phone and online, although most were more confident face-to-face. While referrals to IRIS services initially declined in March 2020, numbers of referrals increased to pre-pandemic levels by July 2020. Patients felt well supported remotely, although patients who had previously experienced face-to-face support preferred it. Technology was the most frequently mentioned barrier to the change from face-to-face training and support to online training and remote support.
conclusionsThis study contributes to practice by asserting the desirability and acceptability of training clinicians to be able to identify, ask about DA and refer to the IRIS programme during telephone/online consultations. This is of relevance to health and public health commissioners when making commissioning decisions to improve the general practice response to domestic abuse.
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.