Search results1 – 2 of 2
Parveen Ali, Peter Allmark, Andrew Booth, Farah Seedat, Helen B Woods and Julie McGarry
This paper aims to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK general population and in the low-risk clinical population and to identify the…
This paper aims to estimate the prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in the UK general population and in the low-risk clinical population and to identify the methodological challenges presented by this task.
A rapid review of the evidence was conducted. Data were extracted with the help of pre-designed tools and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. The data extracted was both qualitative and quantitative.
In the general population, crime survey data gave a range of past-year IPV prevalence from 1.8% to 4.5%. This was higher in women than men (2.5%–6.3% vs 0.9%–2.7%). In both the general and low-risk clinical population, there was little data on pregnant women or gay men and lesbians. No significant relationships between IPV and ethnicity were found. Different surveys used different definitions of IPV and domestic violence, making it difficult to give an accurate estimate. There were also problems with data accuracy.
This research is original and contributes to the knowledge about IPV screening and if prevalence studies help.
Parveen Ali, Peter Allmark, Andrew Booth, Julie McGarry, Helen B. Woods and Farah Seedat
The purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner…
The purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) in non-high-risk settings (defined here as those in which routine IPV screening does not take place in the UK, such as in general practice).
Rapid review as defined by Grant and Booth – it is used under time or financial constraint to assess what is known using systematic review methods. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to May 2019 were searched for “intimate partner violence” and synonyms plus terms related to screening and interventions. A Medline update was performed in August 2020. Data were extracted with the help of a predesigned tool and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. Data were mixed quantitative and qualitative.
The search yielded 10 relevant papers on screening (6 on accuracy and 4 on effectiveness) and 13 on intervention. These showed evidence of the effectiveness of simple screening tools and of subsequent interventions. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a change in UK guidelines which currently do not recommend their use outside of current high-risk environments.
Clinicians outside of high-risk areas should consider the use of some IPV screening tools and interventions but only within research protocols to gather further evidence.