与堕胎相关的就诊过程中发现的亲密伴侣暴力:筛查和干预的系统性回顾。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of perinatology Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-16 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1779746
Thwisha Sabloak, Isa Ryan, Skylar Nahi, Patrick Eucalitto, Melissa A Simon, Ashish Premkumar
{"title":"与堕胎相关的就诊过程中发现的亲密伴侣暴力:筛查和干预的系统性回顾。","authors":"Thwisha Sabloak, Isa Ryan, Skylar Nahi, Patrick Eucalitto, Melissa A Simon, Ashish Premkumar","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1779746","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> To perform a systematic review of screening tools and interventions focused on reducing adverse health outcomes associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) at abortion-related visits.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> Studies were eligible if they included individuals seeking pregnancy options health care services in the United States, screening for or implementation of an intervention for IPV, and were published in English after the year 2000. The primary outcomes were to summarize screening tools, interventions studied, and if interventions led to individuals being connected to IPV-related resources. Secondary outcomes included patient responses to the IPV-related interventions and any other outcomes reported by the studies (PROSPERO #42021252199).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Among 4,205 abstracts identified, nine studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (<i>n</i> = 6) employed the ARCHES (Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings) tool for identification of IPV. Interventions included provider-facilitated discussions of IPV, a safety card with information about IPV and community-based resources, and referral pathways to directly connect patients with support services. For the primary outcome, IPV-related interventions were shown to better inform patients of available IPV-related resources as compared to no intervention at all. For the secondary outcomes, screening and intervening on IPV were associated with improvements in patient perception of provider empathy (i.e., caring about safety) and safer responses by patients to unhealthy relationships.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Screening for and intervening on IPV at abortion-related visits are associated with positive outcomes for patient safety and the patient-provider relationship. However, data on effective tools for identifying and supporting these patients are extremely limited. This review emphasizes the unmet need for implementation and evaluation of IPV-specific interventions during abortion-related clinical encounters.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· The abortion visit offers a crucial setting to address IPV among a highly affected population.. · This study reviews others that analyzed interventions and associated outcomes for IPV at abortion-related visits.. · Appropriate interventions for IPV can improve patient-provider relationships and connect patients to essential resources..</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intimate Partner Violence Detected during Abortion-Related Visits: A Systematic Review of Screenings and Interventions.\",\"authors\":\"Thwisha Sabloak, Isa Ryan, Skylar Nahi, Patrick Eucalitto, Melissa A Simon, Ashish Premkumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1779746\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong> To perform a systematic review of screening tools and interventions focused on reducing adverse health outcomes associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) at abortion-related visits.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong> Studies were eligible if they included individuals seeking pregnancy options health care services in the United States, screening for or implementation of an intervention for IPV, and were published in English after the year 2000. The primary outcomes were to summarize screening tools, interventions studied, and if interventions led to individuals being connected to IPV-related resources. Secondary outcomes included patient responses to the IPV-related interventions and any other outcomes reported by the studies (PROSPERO #42021252199).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong> Among 4,205 abstracts identified, nine studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (<i>n</i> = 6) employed the ARCHES (Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings) tool for identification of IPV. Interventions included provider-facilitated discussions of IPV, a safety card with information about IPV and community-based resources, and referral pathways to directly connect patients with support services. For the primary outcome, IPV-related interventions were shown to better inform patients of available IPV-related resources as compared to no intervention at all. For the secondary outcomes, screening and intervening on IPV were associated with improvements in patient perception of provider empathy (i.e., caring about safety) and safer responses by patients to unhealthy relationships.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong> Screening for and intervening on IPV at abortion-related visits are associated with positive outcomes for patient safety and the patient-provider relationship. However, data on effective tools for identifying and supporting these patients are extremely limited. This review emphasizes the unmet need for implementation and evaluation of IPV-specific interventions during abortion-related clinical encounters.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>· The abortion visit offers a crucial setting to address IPV among a highly affected population.. · This study reviews others that analyzed interventions and associated outcomes for IPV at abortion-related visits.. · Appropriate interventions for IPV can improve patient-provider relationships and connect patients to essential resources..</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7584,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of perinatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1779746\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1779746","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对筛查工具和干预措施进行系统性回顾,以减少与堕胎相关就诊时亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)相关的不良健康后果:研究设计:研究设计:研究对象包括在美国寻求妊娠选择医疗保健服务的个人、针对 IPV 的筛查或干预措施的实施情况,以及 2000 年后发表的英文研究报告。研究的主要结果是总结筛查工具、所研究的干预措施以及干预措施是否使患者获得了与 IPV 相关的资源。次要结果包括患者对 IPV 相关干预措施的反应以及研究报告的其他结果(PROSPERO #42021252199):在确定的 4205 篇摘要中,有 9 项研究符合纳入标准。大多数研究(n = 6)采用了 ARCHES(解决医疗机构中的生殖胁迫)工具来识别 IPV。干预措施包括由医疗服务提供者主持的关于 IPV 的讨论、包含 IPV 相关信息和社区资源的安全卡,以及将患者与支持服务直接联系起来的转诊途径。就主要结果而言,与不采取任何干预措施相比,与 IPV 相关的干预措施能让患者更好地了解可用的 IPV 相关资源。就次要结果而言,筛查和干预 IPV 与改善患者对提供者同理心(即关心安全)的感知以及患者对不健康关系做出更安全的反应有关:结论:在人工流产相关就诊时筛查和干预 IPV 与患者安全和患者-医患关系的积极成果相关。然而,有关识别和支持这些患者的有效工具的数据极为有限。本综述强调了在人工流产相关临床就诊过程中实施和评估针对 IPV 的干预措施的需求尚未得到满足:- 人工流产就诊是解决高危人群中 IPV 问题的关键场所。- 本研究回顾了其他分析人工流产相关就诊中 IPV 干预措施及相关结果的研究。- 针对 IPV 的适当干预措施可以改善患者与医护人员之间的关系,并将患者与必要的资源联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intimate Partner Violence Detected during Abortion-Related Visits: A Systematic Review of Screenings and Interventions.

Objective:  To perform a systematic review of screening tools and interventions focused on reducing adverse health outcomes associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) at abortion-related visits.

Study design:  Studies were eligible if they included individuals seeking pregnancy options health care services in the United States, screening for or implementation of an intervention for IPV, and were published in English after the year 2000. The primary outcomes were to summarize screening tools, interventions studied, and if interventions led to individuals being connected to IPV-related resources. Secondary outcomes included patient responses to the IPV-related interventions and any other outcomes reported by the studies (PROSPERO #42021252199).

Results:  Among 4,205 abstracts identified, nine studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (n = 6) employed the ARCHES (Addressing Reproductive Coercion in Health Settings) tool for identification of IPV. Interventions included provider-facilitated discussions of IPV, a safety card with information about IPV and community-based resources, and referral pathways to directly connect patients with support services. For the primary outcome, IPV-related interventions were shown to better inform patients of available IPV-related resources as compared to no intervention at all. For the secondary outcomes, screening and intervening on IPV were associated with improvements in patient perception of provider empathy (i.e., caring about safety) and safer responses by patients to unhealthy relationships.

Conclusion:  Screening for and intervening on IPV at abortion-related visits are associated with positive outcomes for patient safety and the patient-provider relationship. However, data on effective tools for identifying and supporting these patients are extremely limited. This review emphasizes the unmet need for implementation and evaluation of IPV-specific interventions during abortion-related clinical encounters.

Key points: · The abortion visit offers a crucial setting to address IPV among a highly affected population.. · This study reviews others that analyzed interventions and associated outcomes for IPV at abortion-related visits.. · Appropriate interventions for IPV can improve patient-provider relationships and connect patients to essential resources..

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
期刊最新文献
A Description of IVIG Use in Term Neonates with ABO Incompatibility. Early-Pregnancy Resilience Characteristics before versus during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Infant Mortality Categorized by Birth Weight Percentiles for Deliveries between 22 and 28 Weeks of Gestation. Are Racial Disparities in Cesarean Due to Differences in Labor Induction Management? Factors Associated with the Uptake of Long-Acting Reversible Contraception and Contraceptive Use in Postpartum People with HIV at a Single Tertiary Care Center.
×
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