Kelsey Hegarty

Association between depression and abuse by partners of women attending general practice: descriptive, cross sectional survey

Abstract Objective To explore the association between depression and physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by partners or ex-partners of women attending general practice. Design Descriptive, cross sectional survey. Setting 30 general practitioners in Victoria, Australia. Participants 1257 consecutive female patients. Main outcome measures Some type of abuse in an adult intimate relationship (composite abuse scale), depression (Beck depression inventory or Edinburgh postnatal depression scale), and physical health (SF-36). Results 18.0% (218/1213) of women scored as currently probably depressed and 24.1% (277/1147) had experienced some type of abuse in an adult intimate relationship. Depressed women were significantly more likely to have experienced severe combined abuse than women who were not depressed after adjusting for other significant sociodemographic variables (odds ratio 5.8, 95% confidence interval 2.8 to 12.0). These variables included not being married, having a poor education, being on a low income, being unemployed or receiving a pension, pregnancy status, or being abused as a child. Conclusion Physical, emotional, and sexual abuse are strongly associated with depression in women attending general practice. Doctors should sensitively ask depressed women about their experiences of violence and abuse in intimate relationships. Research into depression should include measures of partner abuse in longitudinal and intervention studies.

A Multidimensional Definition of Partner Abuse: Development and Preliminary Validation of the Composite Abuse Scale

The lack of definitional consistency about domestic violence and the absence of a well-validated comprehensive abuse screening questionnaire have been major methodological flaws in domestic violence research. While there are several screening questionnaires in use, they either are narrowly defined and do not have discrete measures of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse or have not been validated on both abused and nonabused samples. This study presents the development and preliminary validation of a new partner abuse screening questionnaire (Composite Abuse Scale; CAS). Items measuring the three areas of partner abuse were extracted from four published scales: the Conflict Tactics Scale, Measure of Wife Abuse, Inventory of Spouse Abuse, and Psychological Maltreatment of Women Inventory. A survey using these items was sent to all nurses working at a large Australian public, inner-city teaching hospital. Factor analyses of the responses of 427 participants revealed four dimensions: Severe Combined Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment. Preliminary evidence is presented on validity and a high scale reliability is reported fof each subscale.

The composite abuse scale: further development and assessment of reliability and validity of a multidimensional partner abuse measure in clinical settings.

Absence of a well-validated comprehensive partner abuse questionnaire has been a major methodological issue in domestic violence research. A new multidimensional measure of partner abuse, the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS), has four dimensions: Severe Combined Abuse, Emotional Abuse, Physical Abuse, and Harassment. A general practice patient sample (N = 1,836) has been used in the development and testing of CAS. Factor analyses in this current study confirmed the four dimensions from a preliminary nurses sample study and resulted in a final scale of 30 items consisting of acts of physical, emotional, and sexual abuse. These four factors exhibited good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > 0.85) and the corrected item-total correlations were high (> 0.5). Evidence of criterion and construct validity is presented.

The health-systems response to violence against women

Health systems have a crucial role in a multisector response to violence against women. Some countries have guidelines or protocols articulating this role and health-care workers are trained in some settings, but generally system development and implementation have been slow to progress. Substantial system and behavioural barriers exist, especially in low-income and middle-income countries. Violence against women was identified as a health priority in 2013 guidelines published by WHO and the 67th World Health Assembly resolution on strengthening the role of the health system in addressing violence, particularly against women and girls. In this Series paper, we review the evidence for clinical interventions and discuss components of a comprehensive health-system approach that helps health-care providers to identify and support women subjected to intimate partner or sexual violence. Five country case studies show the diversity of contexts and pathways for development of a health system response to violence against women. Although additional research is needed, strengthening of health systems can enable providers to address violence against women, including protocols, capacity building, effective coordination between agencies, and referral networks.

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.

Overcoming the barriers to disclosure and inquiry of partner abuse for women attending general practice

Objectives: To determine the barriers to and rates of disclosure of partner abuse by women attending GPs.

Mothers' AdvocateS In the Community (MOSAIC)- non-professional mentor support to reduce intimate partner violence and depression in mothers: a cluster randomised trial in primary care

AbstractBackgroundEffective interventions to increase safety and wellbeing of mothers experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) are scarce. As much attention is focussed on professional intervention, this study aimed to determine the effectiveness of non-professional mentor support in reducing IPV and depression among pregnant and recent mothers experiencing, or at risk of IPV.MethodsMOSAIC was a cluster randomised trial in 106 primary care (maternal and child health nurse and general practitioner) clinics in Melbourne, Australia. 63/106 clinics referred 215 eligible culturally and linguistically diverse women between January 2006 and December 2007. 167 in the intervention (I) arm, and 91 in the comparison (C) arm. 174 (80.9%) were recruited. 133 (76.4%) women (90 I and 43 C) completed follow-up at 12 months. Intervention: 12 months of weekly home visiting from trained and supervised local mothers, (English & Vietnamese speaking) offering non-professional befriending, advocacy, parenting support and referrals. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes; IPV (Composite Abuse Scale CAS) and depression (Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale EPDS); secondary measures included wellbeing (SF-36), parenting stress (PSI-SF) and social support (MOS-SF) at baseline and follow-up. Analysis: Intention-to-treat using multivariable logistic regression and propensity scoring.ResultsThere was evidence of a true difference in mean abuse scores at follow-up in the intervention compared with the comparison arm (15.9 vs 21.8, AdjDiff -8.67, CI -16.2 to -1.15). There was weak evidence for other outcomes, but a trend was evident favouring the intervention: proportions of women with CAS scores ≥7, 51/88 (58.4%) vs 27/42 (64.3%) AdjOR 0.47, CI 0.21 to 1.05); depression (EPDS score ≥13) (19/85, 22% (I) vs 14/43, 33% (C); AdjOR 0.42, CI 0.17 to 1.06); physical wellbeing mean scores (PCS-SF36: AdjDiff 2.79; CI -0.40 to 5.99); mental wellbeing mean scores (MCS-SF36: AdjDiff 2.26; CI -1.48 to 6.00). There was no observed effect on parenting stress. 82% of women mentored would recommend mentors to friends in similar situations.ConclusionNon-professional mentor mother support appears promising for improving safety and enhancing physical and mental wellbeing among mothers experiencing intimate partner violence referred from primary care.Trial registrationACTRN12607000010493http://www.anzctr.org.au

Prevalence and associations of partner abuse in women attending general practice: a cross-sectional survey

Objective: To deter mine the prevalence and socio‐demographic associations of physical, emotional and sexual abuse by a partner or ex‐partner for women attending Australian general practices.

Guidelines for the Primary Care of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual People: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE We assessed whether existing guidelines for the primary care of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) people meet appropriate standards of developmental rigor, and whether they provide consistent recommendations useful for primary care clinicians. METHODS We performed a systematic review of such guidelines using the Cochrane Collaboration method. The countries searched were Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. For sources, we used electronic databases, guidelines databases, primary care professional organizations, government departments of public health, LGB health care textbooks, and national LGB organizations. We assessed the quality of existing guidelines using the validated Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument and compared the recommendations from all fully appraised guidelines. RESULTS Our search did not identify any previous systematic reviews on primary care of LGB people. Of 2,421 documents identified, we initially reviewed 30 and fully appraised 11, none of which completely satisfied the AGREE criteria for quality and only 2 of which were specifically designed for primary care. Developmental rigor was poor. Particular gaps were a lack of explicit inclusion criteria, independent reviewers, and updating procedures. Nonetheless, we did identify several consistent recommendations pertinent to primary care settings: guidance on inclusive clinical environments, standards for clinician-patient communication, sensitive documentation of sexual orientation, knowledge for cultural awareness, staff training, and addressing population health issues. CONCLUSIONS Currently available guidelines for LGB care are philosophically and practically consistent, and provide a degree of evidence-based clinical and systems support to primary care clinicians. There is a need, however, for evidence-based LGB guidelines that are more rigorously developed, disseminated, and evaluated specifically for the primary care setting.

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objective To examine the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings to determine whether or not screening increases identification and referral to support agencies, improves women’s wellbeing, decreases further violence, or causes harm. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing effectiveness of screening. Study assessment, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two of the authors. Standardised estimations of the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Data sources Nine databases searched up to July 2012 (CENTRAL, Medline, Medline(R), Embase, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ASSIA), and five trials registers searched up to 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of screening programmes for intimate partner violence involving all women aged ≥16 attending a healthcare setting. We included only studies in which clinicians in the intervention arm personally conducted the screening, or were informed of the screening result at the time of the consultation, compared with usual care (or no screening). Studies of screening programmes that were followed by structured interventions such as advocacy or therapeutic intervention were excluded. Results 11 eligible trials (n=13 027) were identified. In six pooled studies (n=3564), screening increased the identification of intimate partner violence (risk ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (4.26, 1.76 to 10.31). Based on three studies (n=1400), we detected no evidence that screening increases referrals to domestic violence support services (2.67, 0.99 to 7.20). Only two studies measured women’s experience of violence after screening (three to 18 months after screening) and found no reduction in intimate partner violence. One study reported that screening does not cause harm. Conclusions Though screening is likely to increase identification of intimate partner violence in healthcare settings, rates of identification from screening interventions were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of such violence. It is uncertain whether screening increases effective referral to supportive agencies. Screening does not seem to cause harm in the short term, but harm was measured in only one study. As the primary studies did not detect improved outcomes for women screened for intimate partner violence, there is insufficient evidence for screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding, or screening in combination with therapeutic intervention for women’s long term wellbeing, are needed to inform the implementation of identification policies in healthcare settings.