ArticlePloS one2024
The acceptability of intimate partner violence screening and response among refugee women accessing Australian resettlement services.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Screening and response for intimate partner violence (IPV) is recommended for women in priority populations and is implemented in health services across diverse jurisdictions. Most women experiencing IPV strongly support screening, however this is untested with refugee women in resettlement contexts. Around one third of refugee women in Australia experience IPV and face multiple post-migration challenges. SAHAR (Safety and Health after Arrival) tested IPV screening using the ACTS tool, brief intervention, and referral with women accessing four settlement support services. Women attending sites during the study period were invited to participate in a three month follow up survey with participation by 321/375 women recruited (86%). Acceptability of IPV screening was assessed against (i) levels of comfort with the IPV screening questions and (ii) strength of agreement/disagreement with settlement services asking women about being frightened, controlled or hurt by their partners. Of participants who recalled the screening, 93% reported being very or moderately comfortable with being asked the questions (89% who had experienced IPV; 94% of those with no IPV identified). For all participants, 84% strongly or somewhat agreed with services asking the questions, with no significant difference in agreement between disclosing and non-disclosing groups. Those with no recall of the questions had lower overall agreement and higher disagreement than those who recalled the questions (88% and 10%). Acceptability was not associated with age, country of origin, household composition, time since arrival or number of prior service visits. Participants identified 'care shown by the worker', 'talking to someone in my own language', 'trust in the privacy of the service', and 'talking to a female worker' as the factors most important for encouraging discussion of IPV. High acceptance of IPV screening by refugee women supports consideration of implementation across settlement services, a key access point for refugee women with diverse needs.
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.