Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39693303›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

The acceptability of intimate partner violence screening and response among refugee women accessing Australian resettlement services.

Nigel Spence, Jo Spangaro, Nicola Man, Jacqui Cameron, Kelsey Hegarty, Jane Koziol-McLain, Tadgh McMahon, Astrid Perry-Indermaur, Chye Toole-Anstey, Jeannette Walsh and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Nigel SpenceSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7006-0522
Jo SpangaroSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Nicola ManNational Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia.
Jacqui CameronSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Kelsey HegartyDivision of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jane Koziol-McLainCentre for Interdisciplinary Trauma Research, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Tadgh McMahonDepartment of Research Strategy and Policy, SSI, NSW, Australia.
Astrid Perry-IndermaurDivision of Women, Equity and Domestic Violence, SSI, NSW, Australia.
Chye Toole-AnsteySchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Jeannette WalshSchool of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Anthony ZwiSchool of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Intimate Partner ViolenceMass ScreeningRefugeesAdolescentAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39693303
PMCPMC11654948

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.