Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2014 May 12:348:g2913.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2913.

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis

Lorna J O'Doherty et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To examine the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings to determine whether or not screening increases identification and referral to support agencies, improves women's wellbeing, decreases further violence, or causes harm.

Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing effectiveness of screening. Study assessment, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two of the authors. Standardised estimations of the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated.

Data sources: Nine databases searched up to July 2012 (CENTRAL, Medline, Medline(R), Embase, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ASSIA), and five trials registers searched up to 2010.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of screening programmes for intimate partner violence involving all women aged ≥ 16 attending a healthcare setting. We included only studies in which clinicians in the intervention arm personally conducted the screening, or were informed of the screening result at the time of the consultation, compared with usual care (or no screening). Studies of screening programmes that were followed by structured interventions such as advocacy or therapeutic intervention were excluded.

Results: 11 eligible trials (n=13,027) were identified. In six pooled studies (n=3564), screening increased the identification of intimate partner violence (risk ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (4.26, 1.76 to 10.31). Based on three studies (n=1400), we detected no evidence that screening increases referrals to domestic violence support services (2.67, 0.99 to 7.20). Only two studies measured women's experience of violence after screening (three to 18 months after screening) and found no reduction in intimate partner violence. One study reported that screening does not cause harm.

Conclusions: Though screening is likely to increase identification of intimate partner violence in healthcare settings, rates of identification from screening interventions were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of such violence. It is uncertain whether screening increases effective referral to supportive agencies. Screening does not seem to cause harm in the short term, but harm was measured in only one study. As the primary studies did not detect improved outcomes for women screened for intimate partner violence, there is insufficient evidence for screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding, or screening in combination with therapeutic intervention for women's long term wellbeing, are needed to inform the implementation of identification policies in healthcare settings.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years; Kelsey Hegarty and Gene Feder participated in the WHO guideline group on health practitioners’ response to intimate partner violence; Gene Feder chaired the programme development group of the UK NICE domestic violence and abuse guidelines; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Flow diagram for selection of studies of screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings
None
Fig 2 Effect of screening v usual care on identification of intimate partner violence in healthcare settings
None
Fig 3 Effect of screening versus comparison on referrals for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings
None
Fig 4 Effect of screening on identification of women experiencing intimate partner violence by location subgroup

Comment in

References

    1. Ellsberg M, Jansen HA, Heise L, Watts CH, Garcia-Moreno C. Intimate partner violence and women’s physical and mental health in the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence: an observational study. Lancet 2008;371:1165-72. - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization. Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO, 2013.
    1. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB. The world report on violence and health. Lancet 2002;360:1083-8. - PubMed
    1. Davidson LL, King V, Garcia J, Marchant S. Reducing domestic violence... what works? Health Services. Home Office, 2000.
    1. World Health Organization. Responding to intimate partner violence and sexual violence against women: WHO clinical and policy guidelines. WHO, 2013. - PubMed

Publication types