ArticleBMC public health2025
Compliance with mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence among professionals in Norway.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient-clinician communication in longitudinal care settings about adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and adult traumas: A systematic review of reviews.Patient education and counseling · 2026Pooled it
- Navigating Ethical and Legal Tensions in Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: Insights from Norwegian Assault Centers.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMandatory reporting is a common legislative preventative measure for several types of crimes, among them family violence and specifically intimate partner violence (IPV). Among the individuals who are mandated to report under the law are professionals working with IPV victims and perpetrators in their practice. However, little is known about which characteristics are associated with compliance with the mandatory reporting of IPV (MR-IPV) law, on the one hand, and choosing not to report IPV, on the other.
methodsThe current study sampled 357 professionals from 6 different agencies working with IPV victims and/or perpetrators. Six dichotomous outcome variables of compliance with MR-IPV and choosing not to report were analyzed by multiple logistic regression. The independent variables were professionals' perceptions and knowledge of MR-IPV, context and workplace conditions, and experience with IPV cases and risk assessment.
resultsFindings showed that risk of compliance with MR-IPV varied between complying with and without consent. Perceived applicability of MR-IPV for an IPV victim was the only variable that had significantly positively odds ratio for both compliance with and without consent. For choosing not to report, significant variables varied between whether the incident had taken place sometime throughout participants' careers or during the last year, and whether it concerned a victim or a perpetrator. However, knowledge of MR-IPV, experience with IPV cases, expectations of MR-IPV, perceived workplace time management, and perception of compliance were significant for choosing not to report.
conclusionsKnowledge of the characteristics that are associated with professionals' compliance with MR-IPV is essential to better understand the application of MR-IPV, to implement practice that is consistent with law, and ultimately to prevent IPV. Further research is needed to explore the context of compliance with MR-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.