Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

Appendix F: Summary of Evaluation Studies on Training of Health Care Professionals on Intimate Partner Violence
Pages 269-316

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 269...
... Appendix F Summary of Evaluation Studies on Training of Health Care Professionals on Intimate Partner Violence 269
From page 270...
... and knowledge of or = 0.70) None resources re IPV
From page 271...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes 1 24 Eligible = 148 IpoS~ > Ipre* Within (14items)
From page 272...
... days trail Clinical aids: Attitudes Self-report Materials on re IPV (26 items) local resources; screening Clinical skills Self-report algorithm and experience (10 items)
From page 273...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes Immedi- 6 Eligible = 205 IpoS~ > Ipre* Test reliability (10 items)
From page 274...
... Design Expected Outcomes and Measure Timing Major Outcomes Measure Posl Base- test line (mo Self-efficacy for detecting IPV Behavioral intentions to screen Residents in all specialties (Coonrod et al., 2000) Self-report (6-item subscale, oc=0.72, test-retest = 0.72)
From page 275...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Ipost > Ipre* Ipost> CpOSt*
From page 276...
... Clinical aids: Local resource list; laminated card of screening questions and resource contacts Residents in Type: Mixed One group Knowledge Self-report Yes Imn internal medicine Length: 4 furs. re IPV (lOitems)
From page 277...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes Immedi- Eligible = 45 IpoS~ = Ipre Measures (31 items) ately after Pre = 45 used were those training Post = 45 (100%)
From page 278...
... atel, medical Clinical aids: reporting trait technicians Copy of care requirements, and (Allert et al., guidelines; list documentation 1997) of local resources ED nurses Type: Didactic One group Beliefs re IPV Self-report Yes Imn (Bokunewicz & Length: 60 min.
From page 279...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes Immedi- 3 Eligible = 329 IpoS~ > Ipre* Total (4 items)
From page 280...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (mo Trauma center Type: Didactic One group Knowledge Self-report Yes Imn staff, including Length: Unclear re IPV (18 items) atel' residents in Clinical aids: trair surgery and None emergency medicine, medical students, and surgeons (Davis et al., 2000)
From page 281...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes Immedi- Eligible= Iposr > Ipre (18 items) ately after Not reported training Pre = 92 Post = 92 (100%)
From page 282...
... Design Major Outcomes Measure Posl Base- test line (mo ED staff (continued) Attitudes toward Self-report IPV (10 items)
From page 283...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report (10 items) Ipost > Ipre After training, 35% of .
From page 284...
... 264 Knowledge, Attitudes, and Helled Outcome New of Training hovided Expected Outcomes Id Measure Mung Target Co-~son Pop Paulson Tendon Pup smog Char Base- test (smdycit~on) Pup (1f~plic~1e)
From page 285...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report IFU2 > Ipre IFU2 > analyses, CFU2* yielding an overall Self-report Self-report Self-report Self-report IFIJ2 > Ipre IFU2 > CFU2 response rate for the posttest of 65%.
From page 286...
... group) Attitudes re IPV (self-efficacy in IPV victims)
From page 287...
... No comparisons were made between these two groups and the control group. The ability to detect withingroup changes and relative group differences was handicapped by the small sample sizes.
From page 288...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (mo Community Type: Mixed One group Knowledge of IPV Self-report Yes Imn hearth center Length: 3-6hrs. (13 items, atel' staff, including Clinical aids: or = 0.91)
From page 289...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes Immedi- 3 Eligible = 108 IpoSr> Ipre Analyses were (13 items, ately after Pre = 108 IFU > Ipre restricted to the or = 0.91) training Post = 108 IFU < Ipre direct care (100%)
From page 290...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (mo Primary care Type: Mixed Usual and Two groups Self-efficacy re Self-report Yes 9 teem members Length: two available (group detecting IPV (7-item (Thompson etal., half-day training randomized) subscale, 2000)
From page 291...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes 9 21 Two clinics Three clinics IpoS~ > Ipre*
From page 292...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (mo Residents in Type: Mixed Usual and Two groups, % covering Standardized No 6 internal medicine Length: Two available randomized psychosocial issues patient visit and family 50-mint in patient interview practice (Saunders sessions or et al., 1993)
From page 293...
... (months) Intervention Comparison Measure Sample Size and Attrition from Measurement I = Intervention Group C = Comparison Group Pre = Baseline or Pretest Post = Posttest FU = Follow-up Within Group Change Relative Group Difference Comment Standardized patient visit Standardized patient visit Standardized patient visit Chart review Self-report of patients Researcher ratings Chart review No 6 Yes 12 18 Yes 12 Post = 15 Post = 20 3 hospitals: Pre = 600 Post= 600 FU = 600 3 hospitals: Pre = 600 Post= 600 FU = 600 Pre = 21 Pre = 26 Ipost > Ipre*
From page 294...
... screening and suspected or confirmed abuse; patient card of resources and safety tips; additional tailored followup training to some CHCs Number of participants: 108 Cohort % of all cases with Chart a completed safety review assessment % of all cases Chart where a body map review was completed % of all cases with Chart referral to review CHC staff % of all cases with Chart referrals to review outside agencies Yes 6 Public health Type: Mixed Cohort % of identified Chart Yes 12 nurses (Shepard Length: 4 furs. IPV cases who review et al., 1999)
From page 295...
... Intervention Comparison I = Intervention Group C = Comparison Group Pre = Baseline or Pretest Post = Posttest FU = Follow-up Within- Relative Group Group Change Difference Comment Chart review Chart review Chart review Chart review Chart review Chart review Yes 6 Pre = 251 Post = 255 Yes 12 24 Pre= 31 Post = 23 FU= 18 post > Ipre post Ipre post > Ipre post > Ipre post > Ipre IFU > Ipre Ipost > Ipre IFU > Ipre Analyses controlled for age of patients. continued on next page
From page 296...
... over 12 months (e.g., manual) judged good or Clinical aids: excellent Posters; provider cue cards; routine exam forms; feedback Number of participants: Unclear Prenatal health Type: Didactic No protocol in Two groups % of identified Chart review Yes 3 clinic staff, Length: 90 min.
From page 297...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Chart 15 18 Post, FU1, Post, FU1, IFU3 > A total of 2,531 review 21 FU2, FU3 = FU2, FU3 = CFU3* charts were 24 Not reported Not reported reviewed, but the numbers were not Chart review Chart IFU3 > CFU3*
From page 298...
... List of List of contacts with patients (daily contacts; about IPV diary) button Residents in Type: Didactic internal medicine Length: 105 (Knight et al., mins.
From page 299...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Standardized patient 9 Eligible = 205 Eligible = 93 Post = 205 Post = 93 (100%)
From page 300...
... Design Major Outcomes Measure Timing Pos. Base- test line (mc Residents in Type: Mixed internal medicine Length: 4 furs.
From page 301...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Chart Yes 6 Pre = 693 Iposr > Ipre review Post = 277 Chart Iposr < Ipre review Standardized 4 Eligible = Eligible = Iposr= CpOS~ Due to the patient visit Not reported Not reported small sample Post = 10 Post= 6 sizes, no statistical tests were performed. continued on next page
From page 302...
... Study Major Design Outcomes Measure Timing Pos Base- test line (me Residents in Type: Mixed Usual and Two groups, Time needed to Standardized No 6 internal medicine Length: Two available randomized detect IPV patient visit and family 50-mint in interview practice (Saunders et al., 1993) sessions or one 2-hr.
From page 303...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Standardized patient visit No 6 Eligible= Eligible= Not reported Not reported Post = 15 Post = 20 Ipost = CpOSt Randomization was done by team in one site, and those who did not attend training were placed randomly in rotation sites. The outcome was in the expected direction but was not significant after physician gender, prior professional exposure, and number of IPV victims known were controlled for.
From page 304...
... Group (if applicable) Design Outcomes Measure line (mc ED staff, Type: Mixed Usual or Two groups % of women who Self-report Yes 9-1 including Length: 2 days available (groups asked about IPV of physicians, Clinical aids: training randomized)
From page 305...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Self-report Yes 9-12 18-24 Pre = Not Pre = Not IFU > IPre IMPOSE < COON Analyses Of reported reported IFU > CFU controlled for patients Post= 330 FU2 = 319 baseline IpoS~ > CROSS differences. Chart IFU > CFU Although not review statistically significant due to low statistical power, the ratio of self reported IPV cases by patients to those documented in the medical record .
From page 306...
... victims Clinical aids: Protocols; % of possible Chart forms; body IPV cases that review map; checklist; were confirmed contact cards Number of % of possible Chart participants: IPV cases with review 33 nurses and documentation 11 medical staff ED staff Type: Unclear Cohort % of all cases Chart Yes 12 (McLeer et al., Length: identified as IPV review 1989) Unclear Clinical aids: Protocol Number of participants: Not clear ED physicians Type: Didactic Cohort % of all cases Chart 1 m (Olson et al., Length: 1 hr.
From page 307...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Chart Yes 1-3 12-15 Pre = 2276 Pre = 1768 IpoS~ = Ipre IpoS~ = CpOS~ The analyses review Post = 2287 Post = 1720 IFU = CFU did not FU = 1598 FU = 1312 incorporate additional Chart Pre = 57 Pre = 54 IpoSr > Ipre* Iposr > variables (e.g., review Post = 53 Post = 45 COOK*
From page 308...
... Length: Unclear Clinical aids: None Number of participants: Unclear Cohort % of self-reported Chart IPV victims who review were noted as such on chart within 24 hours after presentation Yes 12 ED, critical Type: Usual and Two groups % of cases with Chart 15 care, and Length: available (one documentation of review perinatal Clinical aids: comparison definite IPV hospital staff Protocol group) (Short et al., % of cases with Chart in press)
From page 309...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Chart Yes 12 Pre = 141 IpoS~ = CpOS~ Low attendance review Post = 183 at training and lack of social work referral services at times when victims showed in the emergency room may have contributed to the lack of differences. Chart 15 18 Post= Post= IFU3 > A total of review 21 FU1= FU1= CFU3*
From page 310...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (mo Maternity care Type: Didactic Cohort % of pregnant Self-report Yes 12 coordinators in Length: adolescents of county health Unclear reporting IPV at adolescent departments Clinical aids: first visit patients (Covington Protocol et al., 1997a) Number of % of pregnant Self-report participants: adolescents of reporting IPV at adolescent any visit patients Maternity care Type: Didactic Cohort % of pregnant Self-report Yes 12 coordinators in Length: adult clients of county health Unclear reporting IPV at pregnant departments Clinical aids: first visit patients (Covington Protocol et al., 1997b)
From page 311...
... adolescent Although the patients rate of identification at the first visit doubled between baseline and the posttest, this was not a statistically reliable difference due to the small sample size. Self-report Yes 12 Pre = 1,056 IpoS~> Ipre*
From page 312...
... Design Outcomes Measure line (me Community Type: Mixed Cohort % of cases Chart Yes 6 health center Length: 3-6 furs. screened for review staff, including Clinical aids: IPV physicians, IPV screening mid-level pocket card; % of cases Chart practitioners, IPV assessment where review social workers, form; stamp to IPV was and psychologists indicate suspected (Harwell et al., screening and 1998)
From page 313...
... Intervention Comparison I = Intervention Group C = Comparison Group Pre = Baseline or Pretest Post = Posttest FU = Follow-up Within Group Change Relative Group Difference Comment Chart review Chart review Chart review Chart review Yes 6 Pre = 251 Post = 255 Yes 12 24 Pre = 546 Post = 442 FU = 372 IpoSt > Ipre*
From page 314...
... 12 months % of patients Chart Yes Clinical aids: who were asked review Posters; about IPV provider cue cards; routine % of patients Chart Yes exam forms; who were review feedback victims of IPV Prenatal health Type: Didactic No protocol in Two groups % of patients Chart Yes 3 clinic staff, Length: one clinic (one identified as review including 90 min. comparison IPV physicians, Clinical aids: group)
From page 315...
... Intervention Comparison Change Difference Comment Provider Yes 9 2 clinics 3 clinics Ipost > Ipre Ipost> Differences in self-report Eligible = ? Eligible = ?


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.