Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42550699›Full record

ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2026

Single Question vs Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool for Intimate Partner Violence Screening.

Gretchen Nonawzki, Zhengqiu Zhou, Maureen Mohan, Saria Slowey, Donna Carden, Robyn Hoelle

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Gretchen NonawzkiHCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Department of Graduate Medical Education, Gainesville, Florida.
Zhengqiu ZhouHCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Department of Graduate Medical Education, Gainesville, Florida.
Maureen MohanHCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Department of Graduate Medical Education, Gainesville, Florida.
Saria SloweyHCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Department of Graduate Medical Education, Gainesville, Florida.
Donna CardenUniversity of Florida, Department of Emergency Medicine, Gainesville, Florida.
Robyn HoelleHCA Florida North Florida Hospital, Department of Graduate Medical Education, Gainesville, Florida.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIntimate partner violence (IPV) represents a pervasive and costly public health issue. Many IPV victims seek care in the emergency department (ED) due to injuries or related medical complaints; yet a substantial number of cases remain undetected. The challenge lies in implementing effective screening tools within the demanding environment of an ED. In this study we aimed to assess the efficacy of two brief IPV screening tools- the single question, "Have you been hit, kicked, punched, or otherwise hurt by someone in the past year?" and the 4-item Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool-and to compare them to the more comprehensive Index of Spouse Abuse, a validated 30-item survey that is considered the gold standard for IPV assessment. Our objective was to identify improved strategies for IPV screening in the busy ED setting.

methodsIn this prospective study, every third English-speaking female patient 18-55 years of age presenting to our ED triage was invited to participate. Each participating patient was sequentially assigned to either the single question or the ongoing assessment screening group. Both groups completed feedback surveys about their experiences and the Index of Spouse Abuse survey. We used chi-square tests to compare categorical variables, and we used frequency tables to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of each IPV screening tool. We compared test characteristics between the Ongoing Violence Asessment Tool or the single question screening tool to the Index of Spouse Abuse using the Fisher exact test. Mean duration was compared using two-tailed Student t-tests. The primary outcome was the sensitivity and specificity of the single question assessment. and the 4-item Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool, using the Index of Spouse Abuse as the gold standard for IPV screening. Secondary outcomes were to record the length of time needed to screen with the single question assessment and the Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool and to collect participant feedback on the two screening tools.

resultsA total of 400 participants were enrolled in the study and completed the designated surveys. Screening time was significantly shorter in the single question group (median 6 seconds) compared to the ongoing assessment group (median13 seconds; P < .001). Feedback surveys did not reveal significant differences between the two groups. When compared to the Index of Spouse Abuse, the single question tool exhibited sensitivity of 53.3% and specificity of 94.1%, while the ongoing assessment demonstrated slightly higher sensitivity levels of 75.0% and lower specificity of 92.8%. For the single question assesssment, the positive predictive value was 42.1% and negative predictive value was 96.1%. For the Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool, the positive predictive value was 40.1% and the negative predictive value was 98.2%.

conclusionThe 7-second reduction in overall IPV screening time for the single question compared to the 4-item Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool likely has little clinical benefit, especially with its low sensitivity. Further studies are needed to identify the optimal screening tool for intimate partner violence in the emergency department.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalIntimate Partner ViolenceMass ScreeningAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMiddle AgedProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID42550699
PMCPMC13436654

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.