Community and Public Health, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
University of Virginia School of Nursing, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Public Health Nurs. 2024 Mar-Apr;41(2):328-337. doi: 10.1111/phn.13279. Epub 2024 Jan 24.
Screening for intimate partner violence in the home is often challenging due to the lack of privacy. The aim of this study was to compare two different screening methods (paper-pencil vs. tablet) for identifying intimate partner violence during perinatal home visits.
Randomized control trial.
Pregnant women (N = 416) in perinatal home visiting programs were randomized to either paper-pencil or computer assisted, intimate partner violence screening.
The Abuse Assessment Screen was used to screen for physical and sexual IPV and Women's Experiences with Battering for emotional intimate partner violence.
No significant differences in prevalence were found between the screening methods. Intimate partner violence prevalence rates for the year before and/or during pregnancy using paper-pencil was 21.8% versus 24.5% using tablets (p = .507). There were significant differences in prevalence among the three race/ethnic groups (Caucasian, 36.9%; African American, 26.7%; Hispanics, 10.6%; p < .001) and significant differences in rates across three geographical areas: urban 16.0%; rural 27.6%, suburban women 32.3% (p < .001).
This study provides evidence that both methods are useful for identifying intimate partner violence during perinatal home visits.
由于缺乏隐私,在家中筛查亲密伴侣暴力通常具有挑战性。本研究旨在比较两种不同的筛查方法(纸笔与平板电脑)在产前家访中识别亲密伴侣暴力的效果。
随机对照试验。
参与产前家访计划的孕妇(N=416)被随机分配至纸笔或计算机辅助的亲密伴侣暴力筛查。
使用虐待评估量表筛查身体和性亲密伴侣暴力,使用女性受暴经历量表筛查情感亲密伴侣暴力。
两种筛查方法的流行率无显著差异。使用纸笔进行的孕前和/或孕期亲密伴侣暴力流行率为 21.8%,使用平板电脑为 24.5%(p=0.507)。三个种族/族裔群体(白人 36.9%、非裔美国人 26.7%、西班牙裔 10.6%)之间存在显著差异(p<0.001),三个地理区域(城市 16.0%、农村 27.6%、郊区 32.3%)的流行率也存在显著差异(p<0.001)。
本研究提供了证据表明,这两种方法在产前家访中识别亲密伴侣暴力均有效。