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.
Cette étude a été identifiée comme étant potentiellement à fort impact.
L'indicateur High Impact de l'ENP, basé sur l'IA, estime l'influence qu'un article est susceptible d'avoir en intégrant des signaux provenant à la fois de la revue dans laquelle il est publié et du contenu scientifique de l'article lui-même.
Développé à l'aide d'un traitement du langage naturel de pointe, le modèle High Impact de l'ENP prédit avec plus de précision les futures citations d'une étude que le seul facteur d'impact de la revue.
Cela permet d'identifier plus tôt les recherches cliniquement significatives et aide les lecteurs à se concentrer sur les articles les plus susceptibles d'influencer les pratiques futures.
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)?
Oui = 1
Incertain = 0,5
Non pertinent = 0
Non = 0
L'évaluation des critères de rapport permet d'évaluer la transparence avec laquelle les auteurs rapportent les caractéristiques méthodologiques et les caractéristiques de l'essai dans la publication. L'évaluation est divisée en cinq catégories qui sont présentées ci-dessous.
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
L'indice de fragilité est un outil qui aide à l'interprétation des résultats significatifs, en fournissant une mesure de la force d'un résultat. L'indice de fragilité représente le nombre d'événements consécutifs qui doivent être ajoutés à un résultat dichotomique pour que le résultat ne soit plus significatif. Un petit nombre représente un résultat plus faible et un grand nombre un résultat plus fort.
Pourquoi cette étude était-elle nécessaire maintenant ?
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.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
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).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
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.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
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.
AVIS DE NON-RESPONSABILITÉ
Le contenu de cette page est fourni à titre d'information uniquement et n'est pas destiné à remplacer un avis médical, un diagnostic ou un traitement professionnel. Si vous avez besoin d'un traitement médical, demandez toujours l'avis de votre médecin ou rendez-vous au service des urgences le plus proche. Les opinions, croyances et points de vue exprimés par les individus sur le contenu de cette page ne reflètent pas les opinions, croyances et points de vue d'OrthoEvidence.
0 de 4 articles mensuels GRATUITS débloqués
