Ann Taket

How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different health-care settings meet criteria for a screening programme? Systematic reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria

OBJECTIVES The two objectives were: (1) to identify, appraise and synthesise research that is relevant to selected UK National Screening Committee (NSC) criteria for a screening programme in relation to partner violence; and (2) to judge whether current evidence fulfils selected NSC criteria for the implementation of screening for partner violence in health-care settings. DATA SOURCES Fourteen electronic databases from their respective start dates to 31 December 2006. REVIEW METHODS The review examined seven questions linked to key NSC criteria: QI: What is the prevalence of partner violence against women and what are its health consequences? QII: Are screening tools valid and reliable? QIII: Is screening for partner violence acceptable to women? QIV: Are interventions effective once partner violence is disclosed in a health-care setting? QV: Can mortality or morbidity be reduced following screening? QVI: Is a partner violence screening programme acceptable to health professionals and the public? QVII: Is screening for partner violence cost-effective? Data were selected using different inclusion/exclusion criteria for the seven review questions. The quality of the primary studies was assessed using published appraisal tools. We grouped the findings of the surveys, diagnostic accuracy and intervention studies, and qualitatively analysed differences between outcomes in relation to study quality, setting, populations and, where applicable, the nature of the intervention. We systematically considered each of the selected NSC criteria against the review evidence. RESULTS The lifetime prevalence of partner violence against women in the general UK population ranged from 13% to 31%, and in clinical populations it was 13-35%. The 1-year prevalence ranged from 4.2% to 6% in the general population. This showed that partner violence against women is a major public health problem and potentially appropriate for screening and intervention. The HITS (Hurts, Insults, Threatens and Screams) scale was the best of several short screening tools for use in health-care settings. Most women patients considered screening acceptable (range 35-99%), although they identified potential harms. The evidence for effectiveness of advocacy is growing, and psychological interventions may be effective, but not necessarily for women identified through screening. No trials of screening programmes measured morbidity and mortality. The acceptability of partner violence screening among health-care professionals ranged from 15% to 95%, and the NSC criterion was not met. There were no cost-effectiveness studies, but a Markov model of a pilot intervention to increase identification of survivors of partner violence in general practice found that such an intervention was potentially cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS Currently there is insufficient evidence to implement a screening programme for partner violence against women either in health services generally or in specific clinical settings. Recommendations for further research include: trials of system-level interventions and of psychological and advocacy interventions; trials to test theoretically explicit interventions to help understand what works for whom, when and in what contexts; qualitative studies exploring what women want from interventions; cohort studies measuring risk factors, resilience factors and the lifetime trajectory of partner violence; and longitudinal studies measuring the long-term prognosis for survivors of partner violence.

Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning

CONCLUSION. Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning. DIVERISTY MANAGEMENT. Metatheory, Philosophy, and the History of Knowledge. Metatheory, Theory, and Methodology. Metatheory and Systems Thinking. Contours of Diversity Management. TRIPLE LOOP LEARNING. Typology of Power. Loop 1, Design Management: How? Loop 2, Debate Management: What? Loop 3, Might-Right Management: Why? Loop 3 Continued, Enhancing Emancipatory Practice. Contours of Triple Loop Learning. BEGINNING. Closing Remarks. References. Index.

Screening and counselling in the primary care setting for women who have experienced intimate partner violence (WEAVE): a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Evidence for a benefit of interventions to help women who screen positive for intimate partner violence (IPV) in health-care settings is limited. We assessed whether brief counselling from family doctors trained to respond to women identified through IPV screening would increase womens quality of life, safety planning and behaviour, and mental health. METHODS In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we enrolled family doctors from clinics in Victoria, Australia, and their female patients (aged 16-50 years) who screened positive for fear of a partner in past 12 months in a health and lifestyle survey. The study intervention consisted of the following: training of doctors, notification to doctors of women screening positive for fear of a partner, and invitation to women for one-to-six sessions of counselling for relationship and emotional issues. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence to allocate doctors to control (standard care) or intervention, stratified by location of each doctors practice (urban vs rural), with random permuted block sizes of two and four within each stratum. Data were collected by postal survey at baseline and at 6 months and 12 months post-invitation (2008-11). Researchers were masked to treatment allocation, but women and doctors enrolled into the trial were not. Primary outcomes were quality of life (WHO Quality of Life-BREF), safety planning and behaviour, mental health (SF-12) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included depression and anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; cut-off ≥8); womens report of an inquiry from their doctor about the safety of them and their children; and comfort to discuss fear with their doctor (five-point Likert scale). Analyses were by intention to treat, accounting for missing data, and estimates reported were adjusted for doctor location and outcome scores at baseline. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, number ACTRN12608000032358. FINDINGS We randomly allocated 52 doctors (and 272 women who were eligible for inclusion and returned their baseline survey) to either intervention (25 doctors, 137 women) or control (27 doctors, 135 women). 96 (70%) of 137 women in the intervention group (seeing 23 doctors) and 100 (74%) of 135 women in the control group (seeing 26 doctors) completed 12 month follow-up. We detected no difference in quality of life, safety planning and behaviour, or mental health SF-12 at 12 months. For secondary outcomes, we detected no between-group difference in anxiety at 12 months or comfort to discuss fear at 6 months, but depressiveness caseness at 12 months was improved in the intervention group compared with the control group (odds ratio 0·3, 0·1-0·7; p=0·005), as was doctor enquiry at 6 months about womens safety (5·1, 1·9-14·0; p=0·002) and childrens safety (5·5, 1·6-19·0; p=0·008). We recorded no adverse events. INTERPRETATION Our findings can inform further research on brief counselling for women disclosing intimate partner violence in primary care settings, but do not lend support to the use of postal screening in the identification of those patients. However, we suggest that family doctors should be trained to ask about the safety of women and children, and to provide supportive counselling for women experiencing abuse, because our findings suggest that, although we detected no improvement in quality of life, counselling can reduce depressive symptoms. FUNDING Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Routinely asking women about domestic violence in health settings

The stigma surrounding domestic violence means that many of those affected are reluctant or do not know how to get help. A systematic review of screening for domestic violence in healthcare settings concluded that although there was insufficient evidence to recommend screening programmes, health services should aim to identify and support women experiencing domestic violence.1 The review highlighted the importance of education and training of clinicians in promoting disclosure of abuse and appropriate responses.1 We argue that a strong case exists for routinely inquiring about partner abuse in many healthcare settings.

The end of theory

This paper explores a number of different theoretical positions concerned with the methodology, philosophy, process and practice of OR. These are presented in order to air some of the debates relevant to the theory of (or the role of theory in) OR, but not to provide any definitive resolution to the debates. In part, and in particular in terms of the style in which it is written, the paper is a response to Burrells 1989 call for postmodernizing OR. The concluding section explores these links.

Action research in health promotion

Objectives This article aims to define what is action research and where it fits in with health promotion practice, through drawing upon associated literature and personal action research experience. It also seeks to investigate the possible reasons why it is that health promotion researchers have not readily taken on the processes of action research strategies. Rationale The place of action research in health promotion programmes is an important yet relatively unacknowledged and understated activity. It has proven to be very popular with other professional groups, such as in the education, management and social sciences. In terms of health service activity, it is widely established in the fields of nursing and mental health and is beginning to establish itself in medicine. While there are a few health promotion examples to draw upon, they tend to be isolated, dated and often lie outside of the mainstream literature. It is suggested that this continuing state of affairs denies many health promotion researchers a valuable resource for managing effective change in practice. Conclusion The authors suggest that action research is both a valid and important research method for health promotion researchers, who are advised to further consider its merits in future studies. This article draws attention to the National Health Service (NHS) South West Regional Office-commissioned Our Healthier Nation: Improving the Competence of the Workforce in Health Promotion participatory action research project, as a means of promoting and validating action research strategy. The authors were all actively involved in this project.

Should health professionals screen all women for domestic violence

Background to the debate: The US and Canadian task forces on preventive health recently declared that there is not enough evidence to recommend for or against routine universal screening of women for domestic violence. Yet some experts argue that routine enquiry is justified.

Effect of Type and Severity of Intimate Partner Violence on Women’s Health and Service Use Findings From a Primary Care Trial of Women Afraid of Their Partners

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has major affects on women’s wellbeing. There has been limited investigation of the association between type and severity of IPV and health outcomes. This article describes socio-demographic characteristics, experiences of abuse, health, safety, and use of services in women enrolled in the Women’s Evaluation of Abuse and Violence Care (WEAVE) project. We explored associations between type and severity of abuse and women’s health, quality of life, and help seeking. Women (aged 16–50 years) attending 52 Australian general practices, reporting fear of partners in last 12 months were mailed a survey between June 2008 and May 2010. Response rate was 70.5% (272/386). In the last 12 months, one third (33.0%) experienced Severe Combined Abuse, 26.2% Physical and Emotional Abuse, 26.6% Emotional Abuse and/or Harassment only, 2.7% Physical Abuse only and 12.4% scored negative on the Composite Abuse Scale. A total of 31.6% of participants reported poor or fair health and 67.9% poor social support. In the last year, one third had seen a psychologist (36.6%) or had 5 or more general practitioner visits (34.3%); 14.7% contacted IPV services; and 24.4% had made a safety plan. Compared to other abuse groups, women with Severe Combined Abuse had poor quality of life and mental health, despite using more medications, counseling, and IPV services and were more likely to have days out of role because of emotional issues. In summary, women who were fearful of partners in the last year, have poor mental health and quality of life, attend health care services frequently, and domestic violence services infrequently. Those women experiencing severe combined physical, emotional, and sexual abuse have poorer quality of life and mental health than women experiencing other abuse types. Health practitioners should take a history of type and severity of abuse for women with mental health issues to assist access to appropriate specialist support.

Beyond appraisal: Participatory Appraisal of Needs and the Development of Action (PANDA)

It is often useful to have a framework for guiding decisions about process when carrying out or facilitating some intervention. This paper describes such a framework, developed out of combining participatory rural appraisal (PRA) with various OR/systems methods, that we have used in work in both developing and developed countries to enable local people to obtain, share and analyse knowledge of their life and conditions and to plan and act according to that knowledge. The paper begins by examining the framework provided by PRA, indicating why we felt it necessary to develop something slightly different. This paper will then outline the approach which we refer to as PANDA (Participatory Appraisal of Needs and the Development of Action). Applications are illustrated by means of a case-study taken from a developing country context.

Pragmatic pluralism—An explication

AbstractThe focus with which the paper is concerned is the process or task of intervention and, more specifically, the exploration of three (overlapping and interacting) questions pertinent to those who would intervene:What is to be done?How shall we decide what to do?What can guide our actions? In terms of what we will describe as pragmatic pluralism (our response to these questions), we intend this to be read in several different ways and on several different levels. Illustrating the discussion with examples from a number of different case studies, we will talk about pluralism in each of the following features:in the use of specific methods/techniquesin the role(s) of the interventionistsin the modes of representation employedin the use of different rationalitiesin the ‘nature’ of the client