Search

Multiple intimate partner violence (IPV) educational programs have been developed for health care professionals (HCPs); however, program content and effectiveness vary substantially. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify and synthesize the literature evaluating IPV education programs for HCPs to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and focus future research priorities. We conducted a systematic literature search using broad eligibility criteria to identify studies published between January 2000 and July 2015 that evaluated the effectiveness of IPV education programs in health care settings. All potentially eligible references were screened independently by two reviewers. Data extraction was completed independently by two reviewers for all eligible studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize all data. We identified 65 eligible studies, 55% of which reported positive program effectiveness. Effective programs often reported the use of online training components, delivery by an IPV educator/expert or physician/surgeon, the inclusion of a treatment protocol and resources for patients and HCPs, and included more than five training sessions lasting no more than one hours each. Our results demonstrate that IPV educational programs are heterogeneous and that a wide variety of methodologies have been used to evaluate their effectiveness.

Introduction: Between 38 and 59 percent of women presenting to health care professionals have experienced intimate partner violence. Consequently, multiple intimate partner violence identification or screening programs within health care settings have been developed; however, substantial variations in program content and interpretation of program effectiveness has resulted in conflicting practice guidelines. The purpose of our scoping review is to broadly identify and synthesize the available literature evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and to focus research priorities in the field. Materials and Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and psycINFO. We used broad eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated intimate partner violence identification programs in health care settings. We completed all screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We used descriptive statistics to summarize all data. Results: We identified 59 eligible studies evaluating intimate partner violence identification programs within health care settings. The most commonly reported outcome themes were IPV disclosure (69%, n = 35), number of patients screened (39%, n = 20), HCP opinions towards screening (37%, n = 19), and patient opinions towards screening (29%, n = 15). The majority of studies (36 studies (70.6%)) reported positive program evaluation results. Discussion: The majority of studies reported positive program evaluation results. This may suggest that many different intimate partner violence identification programs are beneficial for identifying victims of abuse, however, it remains unknown as to whether identification programs prevent future episodes of abuse. Additionally, the substantial heterogeneity of the intervention characteristics, study methodology, and outcome measures assessed limits the ability to make clear recommendations as to the optimal method(s) of screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The lifetime prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) for women presenting to health care settings is estimated to be 38–59%. With the goal of providing help to victims of abuse, numerous IPV assistance programmes have been developed and evaluated across multiple health care settings. Objective: Our scoping review provides an overview of this literature to identify key areas for potential evidence-based recommendations and to focus research priorities. Methods: We conducted a search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and psycINFO. We used broad eligibility criteria to identify studies that evaluated the effectiveness of IPV assistance programmes delivered within health care settings. We completed all screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We used descriptive statistics to summarize all data. Results: Forty-three studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in our scoping review. Nine categories of assistance programmes were identified: counselling/advocacy, safety assessment/planning, referral, providing IPV resources, home visitation, case management, videos, provider cueing, and system changes. Characteristics of programmes amongst studies frequently reporting positive results included those in which one type of active assistance was used (77.8% of studies reported positive results), a counsellor, community worker, or case manager provided the intervention (83.3% of studies reported positive results), and programmes that were delivered over more than five sessions (100.0% of studies reported positive results). Conclusions: IPV assistance programmes are heterogeneous with regards to the types of assistance they include and how they are delivered and evaluated. This heterogeneity creates challenges in identifying which IPV assistance programmes, and which aspects of these programmes, are effective. However, it appears that many different types of IPV assistance programmes can have positive impacts on women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]