Skip to main content

Table 4 PICO table

From: Effectiveness of ICT-based intimate partner violence interventions: a systematic review

Author, Year Population Intervention (Study Design, Perspective, Time Horizon) Comparison Group Outcome (Results)
Ahmad. F., et al. (2009) [55]. Female patients
-at least 18 years of age,
-in a current or recent intimate relationship (within the last 12 months),
-were able to read and write English
Setting: Family practice clinic in an urban Hospital
N = 293 women
Intervention Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: usual care + computer survey
Duration: 7 months (March–September 2005)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group: 144
Primary Outcome
-Initiation of discussion about risk for IPVC (discussion opportunity)
-detection of women at risk based on review of audiotaped medical visits.
Secondary outcomes
provider assessment of patient safety
provision of appropriate referrals and advice for follow-up
patient acceptance of the computerized screening
Measurement Tools
IPVC questions from:
Abuse Assessment Screen,
Partner Violence Screen,
items from Improving Health Care Response to Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual For Health Care Providers
Depression questions
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale,
Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression,
Geriatric Depression Scale
Computer Acceptance
acceptance of computer-assisted screening by using the Computerized Lifestyle Assessment Scale (CLAS)
Control group: 149
Usual care
Attrition: 7%
Primary outcomes
-Computer screening was associated with statistically significantly more opportunities for discussing and detecting mental health disorders
-Opportunity to discuss IPVC arose for 35% (48/139) in the computer-screened group and 24% (34/141) of the usual care group
-Detection of IPVC occurred in 18% (25/139) of the computer-screened group and 9% (12/141) of the usual care group
Secondary outcomes
- provider assessment of patient safety: In IPVC positive detections, Physicians assessed patient safety more often in the computer-screened group: 9 of 25 participants in intervention vs 1 of 12 participants usual care group- Provision of appropriate referrals and advice for follow-up: 3 patients in the computer-screened group and 1 in the usual care group received referrals. During these visits, physicians asked patients to set up a follow-up appointment more often in the computer-screened group (20 of 25 participants) than in the usual care group (8 of 12 participants).
- Patient acceptance of the computerized screening: Participants agreed that screening was beneficial but had some concerns about privacy and interference with physician interactions
Bacchus. L.J. et al. (2016) [56]. women aged 25 to 66 years
pregnant or up to 3 months
postpartum with prior IPV
Setting: women enrolled in a US-based randomized controlled
trial of the DOVE intervention
N = 26 Women Interviewed (18 IPV positive)
Intervention Type: Cross Sectional (interviews)
Intervention Group: 8
Intervention: tablet application Visitation Program (DOVE) to disclose IPV
Intervention Group: 8 women (8 IPV positive and 1 IPV-negative) used the DOVE tablet application
Home Visitor paper-based Method
N = 18 (11 IPV positive and 7 IPV negative)
−18 women were IPV positive
- mixed feeling about the DOVE program (impediment vs facilitator)
-patient-provider relationship is paramount
- mHealth should be considered as a supplement and enhance therapeutic relationship
- mHealth should be flexible and adapt to changing patient context
Braithwaite SR and Fincham FD (2014) [57] Married Couples
Setting: community
52 couples (N = 104)
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: presentation, online videos, weekly home assignments, emails
Duration: 6 weeks
Follow-up: 1 year
Intervention Group: 25
Outcome
IPV: measure by Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS-2).
Active Control Group: 26
Presentation and inert information and HomeWorks
Self-reported Physical aggression
receiving ePREP was associated with
-less female-perpetrated physical aggression at post-treatment
- less male-perpetrated physical aggression at 1-year follow up
- and less female-perpetrated physical aggression at 1-year follow up
- 71% reduction in expected counts for female-perpetrated physical aggression and a 99% reduction in expected counts of male perpetrated physical aggression at the 1-year follow-up
Partner-reported physical aggression
receiving ePREP was associated with
- an increase in female-perpetrated physical aggression at post-treatment
- significant decreases in female perpetrated physical aggression at the 1 year follow-up
- 97% reduction in expected counts of physical aggression
Self-reported psychological-aggression
receiving ePREP was associated with a significant reduction in self-reported male-perpetrated psychological-aggression at the 1 year follow-up
Gains were maintained at a 1-year follow-up assessment
Chang. J. C. et al. (2012) [58] Women ages 18 years or older
Pregnant
English-speaking
Coming for first OB/GYN visit
Setting: hospital-based prenatal clinic
N = 250 patient (for 50 providers)
Intervention Type: cross-sectional Survey
Intervention: Computerized non-validated questionnaire
Duration: NA
Follow-up: 4 weeks after survey (Semi-structured interviews with those who reported experiencing IPV)
Intervention group: 250 patients
Control group: Same as Intervention Group; audio recorded their first visits to the provider Control Size: 302 participants Out of 250 women
- 34% disclosed any type of IPV via computer
- 27% disclosed any type of IPV in person
- Out of 85 women who disclosed IPV via computer
 -71% disclosed also in person
 -Out of 91 women who disclosed with either computer or in person
 -36% disclosed via the computerized tool but did not disclose in person
 -7% disclosed IPV in person to the provider but not on the computer
- According to patient feedback, the use of both FTF and Computerized should be used together
Choo E. K. et al. (2016) [59] women aged 18 to 59 reporting both drug use and IPV
Setting: Emergency Department
N = 40 women in total
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: Tablet based education modules for IPV (B-SAFER) with content on drug use and IPV + phone booster
Duration: one session for the web component; 2-weeks for the Booster
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group: 21 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Primary Satisfaction Outcomes
8-item Client Satisfaction Questionnaire; 10-item Systems Usability Scale (SUS)
Control group: 19
B-SAFER (with a content of fire safety) + phone booster
Mean usability score (SUS): 83.5 (95% CI 78.1–88.9) out of a possible 100.
Mean overall satisfaction score (CSQ-8) was 27.7 (95% CI 26.3–29.1) out of a possible 32.
Constantino. R. E. et al. (2015) [60] Women
-ages 18 or older
-English-speaking
-Have basic literacy skills
-Not living with perpetrator
-Has experienced IPV in past
18 months
Setting:
Neighborhood Legal Services Association; Family Court waiting area; A Women’s Center
and Shelter
N = 32 women
Intervention Type: RCT (3 arms)
Intervention: ONLINE-HELLP modules via email or face-to-face per week
Duration: 6 weeks (once a week)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group:11 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurement Tools
-IPV Experience Questionnaire (IPVEQ),
-Availability of personal support: Personal Resource Questionnaire (PRQ)
-Perceived availability of interpersonal and community support: Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL)
-Anxiety, anger and depression: The PROMIS version 1.0 short form
ARM #2 = 6 FTF-HELLP modules in person (face-to-face)
Size:10 women
ARM #3 = Waitlist/Control group: no intervention
Size: 11women
•At baseline, (62%) reported being in physical pain due to IPV
•Anxiety, depression, ISEL all showed significant improvements
Eden. K. B. et al. (2015) [61]. women aged 18 years or older
English-speaking
previous history of IPV
Setting: women in the general community in 4 states
N = 708 women
Intervention Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: IRIS
Online Interactive safety decision aid with personalized safety plan
Duration: One use
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group: 354
Primary Outcome and Measurement Tools:
Decisional conflict: Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
Control group: 543
Online Usual safety planning
Resource website
• After just one online session: intervention women had significantly lower total decisional conflict than control
• no statistically significant difference between control and intervention groups on changes in feeling uninformed
Fincher D. (2015) [62] Low-income African American Women receiving Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
− 18 years old,
-eligible to receive WIC services,
-English speaking,
-literate
Setting: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
N = 368
Study Type: RCT 2-arm
Intervention: via computer-assisted self interview (CASI)
Duration: 2 months (July 17, 2012, and September 21, 2012)
Follow-up: 2 weeks (ask about experience with and preference of screening method)
Intervention Group: 117 (computed as 48.1% of N)
Primary Outcome and Measurement Tools:
general health behaviors, tobacco use, alcohol use: TWEAK: Tolerance, Worried, Eyeopener, Amnesia, Cut down
substance use (Drug Abuse Screening Test
IPV victimization: Revised Conflict Tactics Scales–Short Form (CTS2S)
12 dichotomous (yes, no) outcomes for
-disclosure of lifetime and prior-year:
(a) negotiation skills,
(b) exposure to psychological IPV,
(c) exposure to physical IPV,
(d) exposure to sexual IPV,
(e) exposure to any IPV (psychological, physical, or sexual),
(f) IPV related injury
Control group: 251 (computed as N-117)
face-to-face interview (FTFI).
Women screened via FTFI reported significantly more lifetime and prior year
negotiation and more prior year verbal, sexual, and any IPV than CASI-screened women
117 women completed follow-up (3.8% of sample)
Face-to-Face more effective for IPV disclosure
Fiorillo. D. et al. (2017) [63]. -women ages 18 years or older
-fluent in English
-experience of trauma in the form of sexual or physical abuse
-have high level of psychological distress (score of 4+ on the binary version of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire)
Setting: local mental health and community agencies
N = 25
Intervention Type: Open trial, without control and randomization
Intervention: web-based ACT (acceptance and Commitment Therapy) focused specifically for treatment of PTSD in survivors of interpersonal trauma
Duration: 6 weeks (6 sessions)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group: 25 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurement Tools:
exposure to trauma: Life Events Checklist (LEC-5);
Distress: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)
Stressful Life Events Screening Questionnaire (SLESQ)
PTSD Checklist (PCL-5)
Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS)
Secondary Outcomes and Measurement Tools:
Knowledge of ACT (ACT Knowledge Quest)
psychological flexibility (Acceptance and Action Questionnaire-II (AAQ-II))
Control Group: Same as Intervention Group • Attrition: 16% (84% completed the treatment and post-treatment assessments)
• Significant improvements in targeted outcomes (PTSD, depression, anxiety) upon completion of the 6-session web-based intervention
better ACT knowledge and psychological flexibility
Ford-Gilboe M et al. (2020) [64] Women, 19 years or older who experienced IPV in the previous 6 months.
Setting: community settings (e.g. libraries)
N = 531 women
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention:
tailored, interactive online safety and health intervention
Duration: 12 months
Follow-up: 3, 6, 12 months
Intervention group: n = 267 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Primary: depressive symptoms (CESD-R) and PTSD symptoms (PCL-C)
Secondary: helpfulness of safety actions, confidence in safety planning, mastery, social support, experiences of coercive control,
and decisional conflict
Control Group:
n = 264
non-tailored version of the interactive online safety and health intervention
Both groups improved on depression and on all secondary outcomes
The tailored intervention had greater positive effects for women (1) with children under
18 living at home; (2)reporting more severe violence; (3)living in medium-sized and large urban centers; (4)and not living with a partner
Gilbert. L. et al. (2016) [65]. women aged 18 years or older
Substance-abusers
Have at least 1 HIV risk factor
Engage in unprotected intercourse
Setting: multiple community
corrections sites
N = 306 women
Intervention Type: RCT (3 arms)
Intervention: 4 group sessions with computerized WORTH, self-paced IPV prevention modules
Duration: 1 week
Follow-up: 6 months, and 12-months
Intervention group:103 women
Primary Outcome and Measurements Tools:
the risk of different types of IPV victimization: 8-item version of the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale
Secondary Outcome and Measurements Tools
Illicit drugs ever and within the past 90 days.: Risk Behavior Assessment
ARM 2:
4 weekly traditional group sessions covering same material without computersSize:101 womenControl group/ARM 3:
4 weekly sessions for wellness promotion
Size: 102 women
-Computerized WORTH participants were
62% less likely to report experiencing any physical IPV at the 12-month follow-up;
76% less likely to report injurious IPV;
78% less likely to report severe sexual IPV
No difference was observed between computerized WORTH and traditional WORTH
Glass. N., Eden.K. et al. (2010) [66] Participants
Female Patients who Spoke English or Spanish
18 years of age or older
reported physical and/or sexual violence within a relationship in the previous year
Setting: domestic violence shelters or domestic violence support groups
N = 90 women
Intervention Type: Open trial, without control and randomization
Intervention: Computerized safety decision aid
Duration: NA
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group: 90 (Age 17 to 63)
Primary Outcomes and Measurement Tools
The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS)
Feeling Supported
Certainty about safety plans
Knowledge of options
Clear Priorities
Other tools
-Danger Assessment (DA)
Control group: Same as Intervention Group
Control Size:90 participants
-Mean DA at baseline was (18.14), meaning extreme danger during the last year
-Post intervention statistically significant measures
- participants felt more supported in their decision
- reported less total decisional conflict
- No significant difference
 - Certainty about their safety plans
 - Knowledge of their options
 - Clear Values/priorities
− 60% reported having made a safety plan
− 76% included a plan to leave the relationship
limitations:
- participants were already in a help seeking phase (shelter, support groups)
- More than 90% of these participants reported they had left the abusive relationship in the past year
Hassija C. and Gary MJ (2011) [67] Age 19–52
referred to from a distal domestic violence and rape crisis centers
Setting: Trauma Telehealth Treatment Clinic
N = 15
Study Type: Open trial, without control and randomization
Intervention: Treatment via videoconferencing
Duration: mostly are one-time consult
Follow-up: NA
Primary Outcomes and Measurement Tools
-PTSD severity: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist (PCL) - DSM IV
-Depression symptom severity: The Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D),
-Client satisfaction: Wyoming Telehealth Trauma Clinic Client Satisfaction Scale (WTICCSS)
Control Group:
Same as Intervention Group
Large reductions on measures of PTSD and depression symptom
severity
High degree of satisfaction
Hegarty K et al. (2019) [68] Women, 16–50 years who had screened positive for any
form of IPV or fear of a partner in the 6 months before recruitment.
Setting: community settings
N = 422 women
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention:
I-DECIDE: Website on healthy relationships, abuse and safety, and relationship priority setting, and a tailored action plan.
Duration: 3–60 min
Follow-up: 6 months, 12 monthsIntervention group: n = 227 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
- Self-efficacy (Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale)
- depression (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale—Revised)
Control Group:
n = 195
Static intimate partner violence information (5 min duration)
Women in the control group had higher self-efficacy scores at 6 months and 12 months than did women in the intervention group
No between group differences in depression at 6 months or 12 months
Qualitative: Qualitative findings indicated that participants found the intervention supportive and a motivation for action.
Humphreys. J. et al. (2011) [69] Pregnant women who presented for routine prenatal care
who also reported being at risk for intimate partner violence (IPV)
English-speaking
18 years or older
Fewer than 26 weeks pregnant
Receiving prenatal care at one of the participating clinics,
Not presenting for their first prenatal visit
Setting: prenatal clinics Urban
N = 50
Intervention Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: Video Doctor that generates: Provider Cueing + patient education sheet
Duration: NA
Follow-up: 1 month during next monthly routine visits
Intervention Group: 25
Outcomes and Measurements Tools
- IPV: Abuse Assessment Screen
-occurrence of patient–provider discussion of IPV risk: Abuse Assessment Screen-participants’ perceived helpfulness of the discussion.
-intention to make changes: seriously thinking of making a change within next 30 days or 6 months
Control group: N = 25
usual prenatal care
Video Doctor plus Provider Cueing significantly increases health care provider–patient IPV discussion
-At baseline: 81.8% of Intervention group participants reported IPV vs. 16.7% control group (significant)
-At 1-month follow-up: 70.0% of Intervention group participants reported IPV vs. 23.5% control group (significant)
- 90% of intervention participants were significantly more likely to have IPV risk discussion with their providers at one or both visits compared 23.6% of control group participants who received usual care
- 32 participants reported the intention to make changes regarding IPV within the 30 days to 6 Months vs. 14 participants in control
Koziol-McLain. J. et al. (2018) [9]. women experience IPV in the last 6 months; aged 16 years or older; have access to safe: computer, email address, and internet
Setting: online Ads (info from previous publication)
N = 412 women total
Note: 27% Maori(indigenous)
Intervention Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: Web-based decision aid (i-safe -individualized website) who experienced IPV during the last 6 months
Duration: 12 months (September 2012 to September 2014)
Follow-up: 3,6, and 12 months
Intervention Group = 202
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
CESD-R: self-reported mental health (depression)
SVAWS: Severity of Violence Against Women Scale
standardized, non-individualized web-based information
Control Group = 210 women
-Attrition: 35%
-individualized Web-based isafe decision aid
-Intervention group had 12% increase in safety behaviors, control group had 9% increase
− 78% stated isafe provided them with new skills
− 91% stated isafe provided them with useful information
-No significant differences in SVAWs score nor CESD-R score overall
-The interactive, individualized Web-based isafe decision aid was effective in reducing IPV exposure limited to indigenous Māori women.
-reduction of depression was significant for Maori women post trial; but was not observed at 3 and 6 months
MacMillan. H.L. et al. (2006) [70]. Women ages 18 to 64 years
English-speaking
Setting: 2 Emergency Departments, 2 Family practices, 2 Women’s health clinics
N = 2416 women
Intervention Type: Cluster RCT (3 arms)
Intervention: Screening: Face-to-Face, Computer based, Paper based
Duration: 8 months (May 2004 to January 2005)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group:
Computer Based Screening (769 participants)
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
-Prevalence of IPV (3 scales used):
 -Partner Violence Screen (PVS),
 -Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST)
 -Composite Abuse Scale (CAS)
-Extent of missing data
-Participant preference
Control group(s):
(1) Face-to-face interview with a health care provider (853 participants)
(2) written self-completed questionnaire (839 participants)
−12-month prevalence of IPV ranged from 4.1 to 17.7%, depending on screening method, instrument, and health care setting
-No statistically significant main effects on prevalence were found for method or screening instrument,
- A significant interaction between method and instrument was found
-Face-to-face approach was least preferred by participants
McNutt L. A.et al. (2005) [71] Women, 18 to 44 years
Setting: community health center
N = 211 women
Study Type: RCT (3 arms)
Intervention: Short Computer screening
Duration: one session for the web component; 2-weeks for the Booster
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group: n: unknown
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Sensitivity analysis
Control Group:
n: unknown
Arm2: Short Face-to-face screening with a nurse
Arm3: Long computer screening
The two computerized screening protocols were more sensitive and less or similarly specific than documented nursing staff screening
Renker, P. R., & Tonkin, P. (2007) [72] Postpartum Women at Level III maternity units in two hospitals
N = 519
Study Type: Cross-sectional Survey
Intervention: Computerized Questionnaire + voice and Video
Duration: N/A
Follow-up: NA
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools: (1) Participants’ evaluations of the A-CASI interview to screen for perinatal abuse(2) Participants’ preferences for mode of violence screening (face-to-face, written form, or computer)
(3)Participants’ perceptions of the truthfulness and completeness
of their answers on the A-CASI
(4) Anonymity associated with the A-CASI affect women’s perceptions of their truthfulness when responding to the questions?
(5) the relationship between the women’s abuse status and preferences for mode of
screening, self-report of truthfulness, and evaluation of the A-CASI interview
(6) The relationship of age, source of healthcare, and race to preference for mode of screening, self-report of truthfulness, and evaluation of the A-CASI interview
No Control Group Women overwhelmingly preferred computerized screening for violence over face-to-face and written
formats.
Including computer violence screening for all women, regardless of point of care, age, economic, or racial and ethnic background.
Rhodes et al. (2002) [74] Women and Men 18–65
Presented for emergency care with a nonurgent complaint
Triaged into the lowest 2 categories of our 5-level triage system
Setting: Urban emergency department
N = 248 (170 women, 78 men)
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: Computer screening (generate health advice and patient risk summaries physicians)
Duration: NA
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group
248 (women and men) (170 women)
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
-Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) -Partner Violence Screen (PVS)
-items from Improving Health Care Response to Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Providers
Control Group: 222 (women and men)
usual care
Disclosure
Disclosure in the Intervention Group was significantly higher than Control:
19 cases (17 women + 2 men) out of potential 83 potential cases vs. 1 case in control (no gender reported)
Detection
Substantially higher detection rate of IPV in intervention group compared to control group; but it did not guarantee charting and follow-up by the treating physician
Rhodes et al. (2006) [73] women ages 18 to 65 years
non-emergent female patients
Setting: Emergency Departments (Urban and Suburban)
N = 1281 women
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: self-administered computer-based health risk assessment, with a prompt for the health care provider
Duration: 7 months (June 2001 and December 2002)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group: 637 women Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools: (assessed by audiotape analysis)
Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS)
Partner Violence Screen (PVS)
-rates of discussion of DV,
-patient disclosure of DV to the health care provider,
-evidence of DV services provided during the visit (safety assessment, counseling by the health care provider or social worker, or referrals to DV resources)
Secondary Outcomes
-Medical chart documentation of DV screening (positive or negative)
-DV “case finding” (chart documentation of current or past DV),
-overall patient satisfaction
Control group: 644
usual care
-Rates of current DV risk on exit questionnaire were 26% in the urban ED and 21% in the suburban ED
Primary Outcomes
- In the urban ED, the computer prompt increased rates of DV discussion, disclosure, and services provided.
- Women at the suburban site and those with private insurance or higher education were much less likely to be asked about experiences with abuse.
- Only 48% of encounters with a health care provider prompt regarding potential DV risk led to discussions.
- Inquiries about, and disclosures of, abuse were associated with higher patient satisfaction with care.
Scribano et al. (2011) [75] Caregivers (male and female) of children in a pediatric ED
Setting: Pediatric Emergency Departments
N = 13,057 computerized screens
Study Type: Observational
Intervention: Home safety screening kiosks
Duration: 15 months (October 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009)
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group:
13,057 computerized screens in an ED
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Partner Violence Screen
(1) evaluate the feasibility of adjunctive, caregiver-initiated computer technology in a pediatric ED visit to determine home safety risks
(2) determine the system reliability (technology failure rate).
Control group: Face-to-Face screening 13.7% among those who used the kiosks were positive for IPV
High adoption of the e-screening kiosk
High Reliability of Technology (downtime 4.2% of days)
Need of champions to increase adoption rate
Sprecher. A. G. et al. (2004) [76]. All female patients from the 1996 ED database
Setting: A Medical Center Visits
N = 19,830 patient’s data
Type of Study: Observational (retrospective)
Intervention: Neural Network Model (The model was a two-layer network without any hidden processing layers. Both the input and output layers consisted of 100 elements yielding 10,000 connections between the elements.)
Duration: NA
Follow-up: NA
Intervention Group: 19,830 records
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Ability of a neural network model to identify potential victims of IPV using patient’s data
No control group - The Neural Network identified 231 of 297 known IPV victims (sensitivity 78%)
- The Neural Network categorized 2234 false-positive patients out of 19,533 IPV-negative patients (specificity 89%)
Thomas. C.R. et al. (2005) [77]. women referred by mental health screening and treatment of domestic violence
Setting: rural women’s shelter program
N = 35 women in total
Intervention Type: Open trial, without control and randomization
Intervention: Psychiatric evaluation and treatment provided using telepsychiatry
Duration: NA
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group: 38 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Descriptive
Patient satisfaction questionnaire
Improving mental health services for victims of domestic violence
No control group •most commonly identified disorders were anxiety and major affective disorders, followed by substance use disorders
Goal reached:
Out of the 38 cases screened, 35 (92%) completed the evaluation, 31 (82%) began treatment, and 20 (53%) were transferred to ongoing outpatient care.
Trautman. D. E. et al. (2007) [78]. women ages 18 years or older
Setting: Emergency Department
N = 1005 women in total
Study Type: RCT (2 arms)
Intervention: Computer-based health survey for IPV screening
Duration: 6 weeks
Follow-up: NA
Intervention group: 411 women
Primary Outcomes and Measurements Tools:
Outcomes
screening, detection, referral and service rates
Control group: 594 usual intimate partner violence care (screened voluntarily by ED providers and documented in medical record). - 99.8% of intervention participants were screened for intimate partner violence compared to 33% of control participants
-computer-based health survey detected 19% intimate partner violence positive whereas usual care detected 1%
-Subjects in the intervention group received intimate partner violence services more than subjects in the usual care (4% vs 1%)
  1. aLegend: 1 = Random sequence used; 2 = Allocation concealed; 3 = Study participants blinded; 4 = Research personnel blinded; 5 = Outcome assessment blinded; 6 = Attrition low; 7 = Non-selective reporting
\