138
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Maternal and child health nurse screening and care for mothers experiencing domestic violence (MOVE): a cluster randomised trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Mothers are at risk of domestic violence (DV) and its harmful consequences postpartum. There is no evidence to date for sustainability of DV screening in primary care settings. We aimed to test whether a theory-informed, maternal and child health (MCH) nurse-designed model increased and sustained DV screening, disclosure, safety planning and referrals compared with usual care.

          Methods

          Cluster randomised controlled trial of 12 month MCH DV screening and care intervention with 24 month follow-up.

          The study was set in community-based MCH nurse teams (91 centres, 163 nurses) in north-west Melbourne, Australia.

          Eight eligible teams were recruited. Team randomisation occurred at a public meeting using opaque envelopes. Teams were unable to be blinded.

          The intervention was informed by Normalisation Process Theory, the nurse-designed good practice model incorporated nurse mentors, strengthened relationships with DV services, nurse safety, a self-completion maternal health screening checklist at three or four month consultations and DV clinical guidelines. Usual care involved government mandated face-to-face DV screening at four weeks postpartum and follow-up as required.

          Primary outcomes were MCH team screening, disclosure, safety planning and referral rates from routine government data and a postal survey sent to 10,472 women with babies ≤ 12 months in study areas. Secondary outcomes included DV prevalence (Composite Abuse Scale, CAS) and harm measures (postal survey).

          Results

          No significant differences were found in routine screening at four months (IG 2,330/6,381 consultations (36.5 %) versus CG 1,792/7,638 consultations (23.5 %), RR = 1.56 CI 0.96–2.52) but data from maternal health checklists (n = 2,771) at three month IG consultations showed average screening rates of 63.1 %. Two years post-intervention, IG safety planning rates had increased from three (RR 2.95, CI 1.11–7.82) to four times those of CG (RR 4.22 CI 1.64–10.9). Referrals remained low in both intervention groups (IGs) and comparison groups (CGs) (<1 %).

          2,621/10,472 mothers (25 %) returned surveys. No difference was found between arms in preference or comfort with being asked about DV or feelings about self.

          Conclusion

          A nurse-designed screening and care model did not increase routine screening or referrals, but achieved significantly increased safety planning over 36 months among postpartum women. Self-completion DV screening was welcomed by nurses and women and contributed to sustainability.

          Trial registration

          Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12609000424202, 10/03/2009

          Related collections

          Most cited references19

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The composite abuse scale: further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings.

          Absence of a well-validated comprehensive partner abuse questionnaire has been a major methodological issue in domestic violence research. A new multidimensional measure of partner abuse, the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS), has four dimensions: Severe Combined Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment. A general practice patient sample (N = 1,836) has been used in the development and testing of CAS. Factor analyses in this current study confirmed the four dimensions from a preliminary nurses sample study and resulted in a final scale of 30 items consisting of acts of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. These four factors exhibited good internal reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.85) and the corrected item-total correlations were high (> 0.5). Evidence of criterion and construct validity is presented.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Intimate partner violence, abortion, and unintended pregnancy: results from the WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence.

            To explore how intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with unintended pregnancy and abortion in primarily low- and middle-income countries. Population data are presented from 17 518 ever-partnered women participating in the WHO Multi-country Study on Women's Health and Domestic Violence in 15 sites in 10 countries. Using multiple logistic regression analyses, associations between physical and/or sexual partner violence and abortion and unintended pregnancy were explored. Women with a history of IPV had significantly higher odds of unintended pregnancy in 8 of 14 sites and of abortion in 12 of 15 sites. Pooled estimates showed increased odds of unintended pregnancy (adjusted OR 1.69; 95% CI, 1.53-1.86) and abortion (adjusted OR 2.68; 95% CI, 2.34-3.06), after adjusting for confounding factors. Reducing IPV by 50% could potentially reduce unintended pregnancy by 2%-18% and abortion by 4.5%-40%, according to population-attributable risk estimates. IPV is a consistent and strong risk factor for unintended pregnancy and abortion across a variety of settings. Unintended pregnancy terminated through unsafe abortion can result in death or serious complications. Therefore, reducing IPV can significantly reduce risks to maternal and reproductive health. Copyright © 2012 International Journal of Gynecology and Obstetrics. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Implementing successful intimate partner violence screening programs in health care settings: evidence generated from a realist-informed systematic review.

              We undertook a synthesis of existing studies to re-evaluate the evidence on program mechanisms of intimate partner violence (IPV) universal screening and disclosure within a health care context by addressing how, for whom, and in what circumstances these programs work. Our review is informed by a realist review approach, which focuses on program mechanisms. Systematic, realist reviews can help reveal why and how interventions work and can yield information to inform policies and programs. A review of the scholarly literature from January 1990 to July 2010 identified 5046 articles, 23 of which were included in our study. We identified studies on 17 programs that evaluated IPV screening. We found that programs that took a comprehensive approach (i.e., incorporated multiple program components, including institutional support) were successful in increasing IPV screening and disclosure/identification rates. Four program components appeared to increase provider self-efficacy for screening, including institutional support, effective screening protocols, thorough initial and ongoing training, and immediate access/referrals to onsite and/or offsite support services. These findings support a multi-component comprehensive IPV screening program approach that seeks to build provider self-efficacy for screening. Further implications for IPV screening intervention planning and implementation in health care settings are discussed. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                a.taft@latrobe.edu.au
                l.hooker@latrobe.edu.au
                cathy.humphreys@unimelb.edu.au
                k.hegarty@unimelb.edu.au
                Ruby.walter@vu.edu.au
                catinaA@hume.vic.gov.au
                pagius@burnet.edu.au
                r.small@latrobe.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Med
                BMC Med
                BMC Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1741-7015
                25 June 2015
                25 June 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 150
                Affiliations
                [ ]Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]School of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]Primary Care Research Unit, Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]College of Health and Biomedicine, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia
                [ ]Centre for Population Health, Burnet Institute, Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                375
                10.1186/s12916-015-0375-7
                4480893
                26111528
                fe78788d-e7c6-4004-a60e-e401d8e7e023
                © Taft et al. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 17 December 2014
                : 19 May 2015
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Medicine
                domestic violence,screening,maternal and child health nursing,cluster randomised controlled trial,primary health care,safety planning,sustainability

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log