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%) |