Comparison of Domestic Violence Screening Methods: A Pilot Study

Study objective: Previous studies have indicated a number of barriers to screening for domestic violence (DV) in an emergency department setting. These barriers result in inconsistencies which determine who is screened as well as the content and quality of the information obtained, and if uncontroll...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Annals of emergency medicine 1998-04, Vol.31 (4), p.495-501
Main Authors: Furbee, Paul M, Sikora, Rosanna, Williams, Janet M, Derk, Susan J
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Biological and medical sciences
Emergency Service, Hospital - statistics & numerical data
Female
Hospitals, Rural - statistics & numerical data
Hospitals, University - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Interview, Psychological
Male
Mass Screening - statistics & numerical data
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Spouse Abuse - prevention & control
Spouse Abuse - statistics & numerical data
Tape Recording
Victimology
West Virginia - epidemiology
Wounds and Injuries - epidemiology
Wounds and Injuries - prevention & control
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Study objective: Previous studies have indicated a number of barriers to screening for domestic violence (DV) in an emergency department setting. These barriers result in inconsistencies which determine who is screened as well as the content and quality of the information obtained, and if uncontrolled they are likely to affect measurements of DV incidence in ED populations. The objectives of this project were to design a screening tool that circumvented these barriers and sources of error; to assess whether such an alternative method of screening for DV was acceptable to our patients; and to determine whether the alternative and traditional methods of screening for DV would yield comparable results. Our hypotheses were that the alternative screening tool would be acceptable to our patients and that no significant differences would be found between the two methods. Methods: The study took place in a rural, university-affiliated ED with approximately 36,000 annual patient visits. The study population consisted of 186 women older than 18 years of age who were treated by one designated physician. Approximately half of these subjects were screened for DV in a face-to-face interview. The other half listened to a tape-recorded questionnaire and recorded their responses on a coded answer sheet. Results: There were 175 completed screenings. The average age of all respondents was 34 years, and 90 (51%) indicated a cumulative lifetime experience of DV of some sort. Overall, 3% of the respondents indicated they were in the ED for injuries received as a result of DV. No significant differences were found between the two methods of screening for DV on any measurement, including refusals. No problems hearing the tape or understanding the instructions were reported. Conclusion: These results indicate that the alternative method of employing a recorded questionnaire was no less effective than the best efforts of a designated and conscientious physician. As a means of quickly assessing the prevalence of DV in an ED setting, we find much to recommend such an approach. [Furbee PM, Sikora R, Williams JM, Derk SJ: Comparison of domestic violence screening methods: A pilot study. Ann Emerg Med April 1998;31:495-501.]
ISSN:0196-0644
1097-6760
DOI:10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70260-4