QOL in women experiencing IPV did not improve following counselling from family doctor .
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
تم تحديد هذه الدراسة على أنها ذات تأثير كبير محتمل.
يُقدّر مقياس التأثير العالي الذي يعتمد على الذكاء الاصطناعي من OE التأثير المحتمل لورقة بحثية ما من خلال دمج الإشارات من كل من المجلة التي نُشرت فيها والمحتوى العلمي للمقالة نفسها.
تم تطوير نموذج OE High Impact باستخدام أحدث تقنيات معالجة اللغة الطبيعية، ويتنبأ نموذج OE High Impact بدقة أكبر بأداء الاقتباس المستقبلي للدراسة أكثر من معامل تأثير المجلة وحده.
وهذا يتيح التعرف المبكر على الأبحاث ذات المغزى السريري ويساعد القراء على التركيز على المقالات التي من المرجح أن تشكل الممارسة المستقبلية.
OrthoEvidence Journal (OE Journal) - ACE Report
OE Journal. 2013;1(8):14 Lancet. 2013 Apr 15. pii: S0140-6736(13)60052-5. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60052-552 family doctors were randomized to provide their female patients (272 female patients in total), who screened positive for intimate partner violence (IPV), with either counselling sessions or give them resource cards and provide usual care, in order to compare the quality of life, safety planning and behaviours, and mental health status between the women). Following 12 months, results indicated that counselling from a family doctor did not improve the quality of life, safety planning and behaviours, mental health, anxiety symptoms, or comfort to discuss fears in women. Patients, who received counselling sessions, however did experience a decrease in depression symptoms, and were more regularly asked about their own and their child’s safety.
Was the allocation sequence adequately generated?
Was allocation adequately concealed?
Blinding Treatment Providers: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Outcome Assessors: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Blinding Patients: Was knowledge of the allocated interventions adequately prevented?
Was loss to follow-up (missing outcome data) infrequent?
Are reports of the study free of suggestion of selective outcome reporting?
Were outcomes objective, patient-important and assessed in a manner to limit bias (ie. duplicate assessors, Independent assessors)?
Was the sample size sufficiently large to assure a balance of prognosis and sufficiently large number of outcome events?
Was investigator expertise/experience with both treatment and control techniques likely the same (ie.were criteria for surgeon participation/expertise provided)?
نعم = 1
غير مؤكد = 0.5
غير ذي صلة = 0
لا = 0
يقيّم تقييم معايير الإبلاغ الشفافية التي يبلغ بها المؤلفون عن الخصائص المنهجية والتجريبية للتجربة في المنشور. ينقسم التقييم إلى خمس فئات معروضة أدناه.
4/4
Randomization
2/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
4/4
Statistics
Detsky AS, Naylor CD, O'Rourke K, McGeer AJ, L'Abbé KA. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45:255-65
مؤشر الهشاشة هو أداة تساعد في تفسير النتائج المهمة، وتوفر مقياسًا لقوة النتيجة. ويمثل مؤشر الهشاشة عدد الأحداث المتتالية التي يجب إضافتها إلى نتيجة ثنائية التفرع لجعل النتيجة غير مهمة. يمثل الرقم الصغير نتيجة أضعف ويمثل الرقم الكبير نتيجة أقوى.
لماذا كانت هناك حاجة لهذه الدراسة الآن؟
Women involved in intimate partner violence (IPV) often confide in their family doctors first. However, currently little evidence exists in regard to how doctors should act in response to women who screen positive for IPV. It has been suggested that offering a structured intervention would be of benefit to these identified women in terms of increasing their comfort to discuss abuse, and improve their safety planning and mental health. Therefore, this study aimed to determine whether counselling from a family doctor would improve the quality of life, safety planning and behaviours, and mental health in women who screened positive for IPV.
ما هو سؤال البحث الرئيسي؟
Was there improvement in the quality of life, safety planning and behaviours, and mental health in female patients who screened positive for IPV after receiving counselling sessions from their family doctor compared to standard care, when measured over a period of 12 months?
- When measured at 6 and 12 months, the mean WHOQOL-BREF scores did not differ significantly between the intervention and control group (Adjusted p>0.05), except for the physical subscale score at 6 months (Intervention: 64.2 +/- 22.4; Control: 60.2 +/- 18.0) (Adjusted p= 0.008).
- At 6 months there was no significant difference between groups in the number of patients who had ever had a safety plan (6 months: Adjusted p=0.71). However, at 12 months significantly more patients had a safety plan in the intervention group (43 patients; 45%), in comparison to the control group (27 patients; 28%) (Adjusted estimated effect size: 2.4; Adjusted 95% CI: 1.2-4.9; Adjusted p=0.01).
- There was no significant difference between groups in the number of patients who had a HADS depression score of at least 8 at 6 months (Adjusted p= 0.08).
- At 6 months the number of patients who were inquired by their doctor about their safety was significantly higher in the intervention group (30 patients; 32%), compared to the control group (12 patients; 13%) (Adjusted odds ratio: 3.5; Adjusted 95% CI: 1.7-7.5; Adjusted p=0.001). The number of patients inquired by their doctor about their safety dropped from 6 to 12 months for both groups, but remained slightly higher in the intervention group (19 patients; 20%), compared to the control group (11 patients; 11%) (Adjusted p=0.08).
- At both 6 and 12 months the number of patients who were inquired by their doctor about their child's safety was significantly higher in the intervention group (6 months: 16 patients, 37%; 12 months: 11 patients, 22%), compared to the control group (6 months: 11 patients, 18%; 12 months: 6 patients, 9%) (6 months: Adjusted odds ratio: 6.0, Adjusted 95% CI: 1.7-20.5, Adjusted p=0.005; 12 months: Adjusted odds ratio: 3.8, Adjusted 95% CI: 1.1-13.3, Adjusted p=0.04).
- There were no significant differences between groups for the mean SF-12 mental health status scores (6 months: Adjusted p=0.60; 12 months: Adjusted p=0.15), the number of patients with more than 5 safety behaviours (6 months: Adjusted p=0.63; 12 months: Adjusted p=0.49), the number of patients with a HADS anxiety score of at least 8 (6 months: Adjusted p=0.29; 12 months: Adjusted p=0.67), and the number of patients comfortable to discuss fear (12 months: Adjusted p=0.59).
ما الذي يجب أن أتذكره أكثر؟
The results collected over 12 months displayed that counselling sessions provided by doctors to female patients who screened positive for intimate partner violence did not improve the women’s quality of life, safety planning and behaviour, global mental health, anxiety symptoms, or comfort to discuss fears. However, patients who received counselling sessions experienced a reduction in depression symptoms, and more frequently asked about their and their child’s safety, in comparison to the control group.
كيف سيؤثر ذلك على رعاية مرضاي؟
More research is necessary in determining how to increase the number of women identified who experience intimate partner violence. As well, further research is warranted in developing interventions that may improve the quality of life, safety planning and behaviour, and global mental health in women. Furthermore, conducting a study regarding intimate partner violence for male patients may be worth consideration.
تنويه
هذا المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة هو لأغراض إعلامية فقط وليس الغرض منه أن يكون بديلاً عن المشورة الطبية المتخصصة أو التشخيص أو العلاج. إذا كنت بحاجة إلى علاج طبي، اطلب دائمًا مشورة طبيبك أو اذهب إلى أقرب قسم طوارئ إليك. الآراء والمعتقدات ووجهات النظر التي يعبر عنها الأفراد في المحتوى الموجود في هذه الصفحة لا تعكس آراء ومعتقدات ووجهات نظر أورثوإيفيدنس.
0 من 4 مقالات مجانية شهرية غير مقفلة
