Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:27 pm
Time: 9:27 pm
Results for intimate partner abuse
5 results foundAuthor: Koziol-McLain, Jane Title: Hospital Responsiveness to Family Violence: 96 Month Follow-Up Evaluation Summary: The Ministry of Health (MOH) Violence Intervention Programme (VIP) seeks to reduce and prevent the health impacts of violence and abuse through early identification, assessment and referral of victims presenting to designated District Health Board (DHB) services. The Ministry of Health-funded national resources support a comprehensive, systems approach to addressing family violence. This evaluation summary documents the result of measuring system indicators at 27 hospitals (20 DHBs), providing Government, MOH and DHBs with information on family violence intervention programme implementation. Based on previous audit scores and programme maturity, 10 DHBs transitioned to self audit only for the 96 month follow-up audit, all other data is based on external audit scores for 2011/2012. Details: Wellington, NZ: New Zealand Ministry of Health, 2013. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2013 at: http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/hospital-responsiveness-family-violence-96-month-follow-evaluation Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.health.govt.nz/publication/hospital-responsiveness-family-violence-96-month-follow-evaluation Shelf Number: 128076 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectFamily Violence (New Zealand)Health CareHospitalsIntimate Partner AbuseVictims of Violence |
Author: Koziol-McLain, Jane Title: Hospital Responsiveness to Family Violence: 108 Month Follow-Up Evaluation Summary: This report documents the result of measuring system indicators at 20 DHBs, proving Government, Ministry of Health and DHBs with information on family violence intervention programme implementation. Based on programme maturity, 16 DHBs completed a self audit for the 108 month follow-up audit; the remaining 4 were independently audited. All data are based on the combined self audit and external audit scores for 2012/2013. Details: Auckland, NZ: Ministry of Health, 2013. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: ITRC Report No. 12: Accessed April 23, 2014 at: http://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/447285/WEB_108M-VIP-FU-REPORT-2013.pdf Year: 2013 Country: New Zealand URL: http://www.aut.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/447285/WEB_108M-VIP-FU-REPORT-2013.pdf Shelf Number: 132153 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectFamily Violence (New Zealand)Health CareHospitalsIntimate Partner AbuseVictims of Violence |
Author: Rivas, Carol Title: Advocacy Interventions to Reduce or Eliminate Violence and Promote the Physical and Psychosocial Well-being of Women Who Experience Intimate Partner Abuse: A Systematic Review Summary: Intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. SEARCH METHODS In April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we hand-searched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events. MAIN RESULTS We included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status. The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (post-intervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy. Risk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy. Incidence of abuse Physical abuse Moderate quality pooled data from two healthcare studies (moderate risk of bias) and one community study (low risk of bias), all with 12-month follow-up data, showed no effect on physical abuse for brief (< 12 hours) advocacy interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.17 to 0.16; n = 558). One antenatal study (low risk of bias) showed an association between brief advocacy and reduced minor physical abuse at one year (mean difference (MD) change - 1.00, 95% CI - 1.82 to - 0.18; n = 110). An antenatal, multi-component study showed a greater likelihood of physical abuse ending (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75) immediately after advocacy (number needed to treat (NNT) = 8); we cannot exclude impact from other components. Low to very low quality evidence from two intensive advocacy trials (12 hours plus duration) showed reduced severe physical abuse in women leaving a shelter at 24 months (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.77; NNT = 8), but not at 12 or 36 months. Sexual abuse Meta-analysis of two studies (n = 239) showed no effect of advocacy on sexual abuse (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.37 to 0.14), agreeing with the change score (MD - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.16) from a third study and the OR (0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12) from a fourth antenatal, multi-component study. Emotional abuse One study in antenatal care, rated at low risk of bias, showed reduced emotional abuse at - 12-month follow-up (MD (change score) - 4.24, 95% CI - 6.42 to - 2.06; n = 110). Psychosocial health Quality of life Meta-analysis of two studies (high risk of bias) showed intensive advocacy slightly improved overall quality of life of women recruited from shelters (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46; n = 343) at 12-month follow-up, with greater improvement in perceived physical quality of life from a primary care study (high risk of bias; MD 4.90, 95% CI 0.98 to 8.82) immediately postintervention. Depression Meta-analysis of two studies in healthcare settings, one at high risk of bias and one at moderate risk, showed that fewer women developed depression (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65; n = 149; NNT = 4) with brief advocacy. One study at high risk of bias reported a slight reduction in depression in pregnant women immediately after the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.29; n = 103; NNT = 8). There was no evidence that intensive advocacy reduced depression at - 12-month follow-up (MD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.33 to 0.05; 3 studies; n = 446) or at two years (SMD − 0.12, 95% CI − 0.36 to 0.12; 1 study; n = 265). Adverse effects Two women died, one who was murdered by her partner and one who committed suicide. No evidence links either death to study participation. Details: Oslo: Campbell Collaboration, 2016. 203p. Source: Internet Resource: Campbell Systematic Review 2016:2: Accessed February 5, 2016: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/84/ Year: 2016 Country: International URL: http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/lib/project/84/ Shelf Number: 137780 Keywords: Domestic ViolenceEmotional AbuseFamily ViolenceIntimate Partner AbuseSexual Abuse |
Author: Baker, Linda Title: The Link between Boys' Victimization and Adult Perpetration of Intimate Partner Violence: Opportunities for prevention across the life course Summary: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as violence committed by married, separated, divorced, common-law, dating, or other intimate partners (Statistics Canada, 2015). IPV can involve a range of abusive behaviours, including but not limited to physical, sexual, and psychological harm. It is distinguished from other forms of violence in the nature of the relationship between victims and abusers, which is generally ongoing, with potential emotional attachment and economic dependence (Statistics Canada, 2012). In addition, there tend to be multiple incidents of violence over time rather than single or isolated events. The impact of violence in the context of IPV can extend beyond the direct victim to children who are exposed to the violence (Statistics Canada, 2012). Exposure to IPV, for the purposes of this paper, is included in the term child maltreatment along with neglect, emotional/psychological abuse, physical abuse, and sexual abuse. These various forms of maltreatment are defined in Table 1 and are in accordance with the Canadian Incidence Study (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2010). Typically, children are considered those individuals under 18 years of age (Murray & Graves, 2013). While the majority of individuals who experience maltreatment in childhood do not engage in IPV, a large portion of men who perpetrate violence against their female partners were abused or exposed to family violence as a child (Baker & Stith, 2008; Holt, Buckley & Whelan, 2008; Vezina & Hebert, 2007). Furthermore, just as child maltreatment is a risk factor for future IPV perpetration, the presence of IPV is a risk factor for child maltreatment (Alhusen et al., 2014; Public Health Agency of Canada, 2010). In fact, the cooccurrence of child maltreatment and IPV within families is well-documented in the literature, with prevalence estimates ranging from 30 to 60% (Edleson, 1999; Jouriles et al., 2008; Hamby et al., 2010). Not surprisingly, there are many common risk factors between IPV perpetration and child maltreatment perpetration, which exist at the individual, relationship, community, and societal level (bolded in Table 2; see also: Appendix A). The identified factors tend to be shared by abusers; however, it is also important to acknowledge diversity among men (see "Abusive Men" in Part II for more information). Understanding men's pathways to IPV perpetration, then, involves further exploration of the maltreatment they may have experienced as boys, and preventing child maltreatment also involves working with perpetrators of IPV. Details: London, ON: Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children, 2016. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 13, 2016 at: http://www.vawlearningnetwork.ca/sites/vawlearningnetwork.ca/files/PHAC_Boys_report_S_0.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://www.vawlearningnetwork.ca/sites/vawlearningnetwork.ca/files/PHAC_Boys_report_S_0.pdf Shelf Number: 139012 Keywords: Child Abuse and NeglectChild MaltreatmentCycle of ViolenceIntimate Partner AbuseMale Victims |
Author: SafeLives Title: Disabled Survivors Too: Disabled people and domestic abuse Summary: Disabled people experience higher rates of domestic abuse than nondisabled people. In the year to March 2015 the Crime Survey for England and Wales reported that women and men with a long standing illness or disability were more than twice as likely to experience some form of domestic abuse than women and men with no long standing illness or disability. Our research has found that disabled victims of domestic abuse also suffer more severe and frequent abuse over longer periods of time than non-disabled victims. SafeLives' data reveals that disabled victims typically endure abuse for an average of 3.3 years before accessing support, compared to 2.3 years for non-disabled victims. Even after receiving support, disabled victims were 8% more likely than non-disabled victims to continue to experience abuse. For one in five (20%) this ongoing abuse was physical and for 7% it was sexual. Our research suggests that this may be attributed to a number of factors, either through poor commissioning, lack of awareness or understanding in practice, social stereotyping of victims of domestic abuse or services being inaccessible. For instance, some services may offer only telephone support, which excludes those who cannot communicate on the phone. A further consideration is that services or change programmes for perpetrators may not be easily accessible to disabled perpetrators. Stereotypes may impact professionals' perceptions of what an abuser 'looks like', leading to the misconception that disabled people do not perpetrate domestic abuse. We know that this is not the case and that some disabled perpetrators use their knowledge of their victim's disability, and the systems designed to help them, to cause further harm. For a disabled person, the abuse they experience is often directly linked to their impairments and perpetrated by the individuals they are most dependent on for care, such as intimate partners and family members. Our national data shows that disabled victims are much more likely to be suffering abuse from a current partner (31%) than non-disabled victims (18%). Intimate partners or family members often act as carers and this position of power can be exploited leading to widespread and pervasive means of coercive control and social isolation. Disabled people often suffer from marginalisation in society through misplaced views of their lives and experiences, which can leave them illequipped to recognise abusive behaviours, understand their rights and seek support. Defining disabled people purely by their disability feeds into the perception that disabled people do not have intimate and sexual relationships. Failing to recognise that disabled people have intimate relationships adds an additional barrier to identifying them as victims of domestic abuse. Disabled victims can also be excluded from data. In our national Insights dataset, 14% of people were identified as having an impairment. While this is in line with population figures, given that we know disabled women are twice as likely to experience domestic abuse, we estimate that the true figure is likely to be double (28%). This means that a significant number of disabled victims experiencing abuse are either not accessing domestic abuse services or are not being identified as having an impairment and therefore will not be receiving appropriate assistance or safety planning. Details: Bristol, UK: SafeLives, 2017. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Spotlight Report #2: Hidden Victims: Accessed February 12, 2018 at: http://safelives.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Disabled%20Survivors%20Too%20CORRECTED.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://safelives.org.uk/sites/default/files/resources/Disabled%20Survivors%20Too%20CORRECTED.pdf Shelf Number: 149095 Keywords: Disability Disabled Persons Domestic Abuse Family Abuse Intimate Partner Abuse |