How accurate and effective are screening tools and subsequent interventions for intimate partner violence in non-high-risk settings (IPV)? A rapid review

IF 2.1 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Journal of Criminal Psychology Pub Date : 2021-08-16 DOI:10.1108/jcp-03-2021-0007
P. Ali, P. Allmark, A. Booth, J. McGarry, H. Woods, F. Seedat
{"title":"How accurate and effective are screening tools and subsequent interventions for intimate partner violence in non-high-risk settings (IPV)? A rapid review","authors":"P. Ali, P. Allmark, A. Booth, J. McGarry, H. Woods, F. Seedat","doi":"10.1108/jcp-03-2021-0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) in non-high-risk settings (defined here as those in which routine IPV screening does not take place in the UK, such as in general practice).\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nRapid review as defined by Grant and Booth – it is used under time or financial constraint to assess what is known using systematic review methods. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to May 2019 were searched for “intimate partner violence” and synonyms plus terms related to screening and interventions. A Medline update was performed in August 2020. Data were extracted with the help of a predesigned tool and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. Data were mixed quantitative and qualitative.\n\n\nFindings\nThe search yielded 10 relevant papers on screening (6 on accuracy and 4 on effectiveness) and 13 on intervention. These showed evidence of the effectiveness of simple screening tools and of subsequent interventions. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a change in UK guidelines which currently do not recommend their use outside of current high-risk environments.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nClinicians outside of high-risk areas should consider the use of some IPV screening tools and interventions but only within research protocols to gather further evidence.\n","PeriodicalId":44013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcp-03-2021-0007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) in non-high-risk settings (defined here as those in which routine IPV screening does not take place in the UK, such as in general practice). Design/methodology/approach Rapid review as defined by Grant and Booth – it is used under time or financial constraint to assess what is known using systematic review methods. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to May 2019 were searched for “intimate partner violence” and synonyms plus terms related to screening and interventions. A Medline update was performed in August 2020. Data were extracted with the help of a predesigned tool and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. Data were mixed quantitative and qualitative. Findings The search yielded 10 relevant papers on screening (6 on accuracy and 4 on effectiveness) and 13 on intervention. These showed evidence of the effectiveness of simple screening tools and of subsequent interventions. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a change in UK guidelines which currently do not recommend their use outside of current high-risk environments. Originality/value Clinicians outside of high-risk areas should consider the use of some IPV screening tools and interventions but only within research protocols to gather further evidence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非高危环境中亲密伴侣暴力的筛查工具和后续干预措施的准确性和有效性如何?快速回顾
目的本文的目的是评估在非高风险环境中检测和治疗亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的筛查工具和后续干预措施的准确性和有效性(此处定义为在英国没有进行常规IPV筛查的环境,如在全科实践中)Booth–它是在时间或财务限制下使用的,用于使用系统审查方法评估已知内容。搜索截至2019年5月的Medline、PsycINFO、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库中的“亲密伴侣暴力”以及与筛查和干预相关的同义词和术语。Medline于2020年8月进行了更新。数据是在预先设计的工具的帮助下提取的,并进行综合以满足两个研究目标。数据是定量和定性混合的。搜索结果产生了10篇关于筛查的相关论文(6篇关于准确性,4篇关于有效性)和13篇关于干预的论文。这些显示了简单筛查工具和随后干预措施的有效性的证据。然而,证据不足以支持英国指南的改变,该指南目前不建议在当前高风险环境之外使用。原创性/价值高风险地区以外的临床医生应考虑使用一些IPV筛查工具和干预措施,但仅限于在研究方案范围内,以收集进一步的证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Psychology
Journal of Criminal Psychology CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Policing rape and serious sexual offences: officers’ insights on police specialism Sexual harassment, rape myths and paraphilias in the general population: a mediation analysis study Operation Soteria Bluestone: Rethinking RASSO investigations The effect of tailored reciprocity on information provision in an investigative interview Reconstructive psychological assessment (RPA) applied to the analysis of digital behavioral residues in forensic contexts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1