Feder G, Ramsay J, Dunne D, Rose M, Arsene C, Norman R, Kuntze S, Spencer A, Bacchus L, Hague G, Warburton A, Taket A
University of Bristol, UK.
Health Technol Assess. 2009 Mar;13(16):iii-iv, xi-xiii, 1-113, 137-347. doi: 10.3310/hta13160.
The two objectives were: (1) to identify, appraise and synthesise research that is relevant to selected UK National Screening Committee (NSC) criteria for a screening programme in relation to partner violence; and (2) to judge whether current evidence fulfils selected NSC criteria for the implementation of screening for partner violence in health-care settings.
Fourteen electronic databases from their respective start dates to 31 December 2006.
The review examined seven questions linked to key NSC criteria: QI: What is the prevalence of partner violence against women and what are its health consequences? QII: Are screening tools valid and reliable? QIII: Is screening for partner violence acceptable to women? QIV: Are interventions effective once partner violence is disclosed in a health-care setting? QV: Can mortality or morbidity be reduced following screening? QVI: Is a partner violence screening programme acceptable to health professionals and the public? QVII: Is screening for partner violence cost-effective? Data were selected using different inclusion/exclusion criteria for the seven review questions. The quality of the primary studies was assessed using published appraisal tools. We grouped the findings of the surveys, diagnostic accuracy and intervention studies, and qualitatively analysed differences between outcomes in relation to study quality, setting, populations and, where applicable, the nature of the intervention. We systematically considered each of the selected NSC criteria against the review evidence.
The lifetime prevalence of partner violence against women in the general UK population ranged from 13% to 31%, and in clinical populations it was 13-35%. The 1-year prevalence ranged from 4.2% to 6% in the general population. This showed that partner violence against women is a major public health problem and potentially appropriate for screening and intervention. The HITS (Hurts, Insults, Threatens and Screams) scale was the best of several short screening tools for use in health-care settings. Most women patients considered screening acceptable (range 35-99%), although they identified potential harms. The evidence for effectiveness of advocacy is growing, and psychological interventions may be effective, but not necessarily for women identified through screening. No trials of screening programmes measured morbidity and mortality. The acceptability of partner violence screening among health-care professionals ranged from 15% to 95%, and the NSC criterion was not met. There were no cost-effectiveness studies, but a Markov model of a pilot intervention to increase identification of survivors of partner violence in general practice found that such an intervention was potentially cost-effective.
Currently there is insufficient evidence to implement a screening programme for partner violence against women either in health services generally or in specific clinical settings. Recommendations for further research include: trials of system-level interventions and of psychological and advocacy interventions; trials to test theoretically explicit interventions to help understand what works for whom, when and in what contexts; qualitative studies exploring what women want from interventions; cohort studies measuring risk factors, resilience factors and the lifetime trajectory of partner violence; and longitudinal studies measuring the long-term prognosis for survivors of partner violence.
本研究有两个目的:(1)识别、评估并综合与英国国家筛查委员会(NSC)选定的伴侣暴力筛查项目标准相关的研究;(2)判断当前证据是否满足NSC在医疗环境中实施伴侣暴力筛查的选定标准。
从各自起始日期至2006年12月31日的14个电子数据库。
本综述考察了与NSC关键标准相关的7个问题:问题一:针对女性的伴侣暴力患病率是多少,其对健康有哪些影响?问题二:筛查工具是否有效且可靠?问题三:女性是否接受伴侣暴力筛查?问题四:在医疗环境中披露伴侣暴力后干预措施是否有效?问题五:筛查后能否降低死亡率或发病率?问题六:伴侣暴力筛查项目是否为医疗专业人员和公众所接受?问题七:伴侣暴力筛查是否具有成本效益?针对这7个综述问题,使用不同的纳入/排除标准选择数据。使用已发表的评估工具评估原始研究的质量。我们对调查、诊断准确性和干预研究的结果进行分组,并定性分析了与研究质量、环境、人群以及适用情况下干预性质相关的结果差异。我们对照综述证据系统地考虑了每个选定的NSC标准。
在英国普通人群中,针对女性的伴侣暴力终生患病率在13%至31%之间,在临床人群中为13% - 35%。普通人群中1年患病率在4.2%至6%之间。这表明针对女性的伴侣暴力是一个主要的公共卫生问题,可能适合进行筛查和干预。HITS(伤害、侮辱、威胁和尖叫)量表是几种适用于医疗环境的简短筛查工具中最好的。大多数女性患者认为筛查是可以接受的(范围为35% - 99%),尽管她们也指出了潜在危害。支持宣传有效性的证据在增加,心理干预可能有效,但不一定对通过筛查识别出的女性有效。没有筛查项目试验测量发病率和死亡率。医疗专业人员对伴侣暴力筛查的接受度在15%至95%之间,未达到NSC标准。没有成本效益研究,但一项在全科医疗中增加识别伴侣暴力幸存者的试点干预的马尔可夫模型发现,这种干预可能具有成本效益。
目前,无论是在一般医疗服务还是特定临床环境中,都没有足够的证据来实施针对女性伴侣暴力问题的筛查项目。进一步研究的建议包括:系统层面干预以及心理和宣传干预的试验;测试理论明确的干预措施以帮助了解何种措施对何人、何时以及在何种情况下有效;探索女性对干预措施期望的定性研究;测量风险因素、复原力因素以及伴侣暴力终生轨迹的队列研究;以及测量伴侣暴力幸存者长期预后的纵向研究。