Comparable outcomes in quality of life with/(out) partner violence screening intervention .
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(5):34 JAMA. 2012 Aug 15;308(7):681-9Exclusive Author Interview
Dr. Klevens speaks on screening for intimate partner violence.
2708 English- or Spanish-speaking women were randomised to undergo an intervention involving a computerized partner violence screening with a partner violence resource list, an intervention with just a partner violence resource list, or a control group with neither. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life. The results indicated that no significant differences were seen between the three groups on the outcome of quality of life at the one-year follow-up.
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
3/4
Outcome Measurements
4/4
Inclusion / Exclusion
4/4
Therapy Description
3/4
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 ?
Partner violence is considered a health and public health problem. Screening for partner violence has been recommended by a number of health organizations. However, there is a lack of evidence that supports that this intervention results in improvement in health-related outcomes. This study examines the effect of screening for partner violence on the quality of life of women.
Quelle était la principale question de recherche ?
What are the outcomes in quality of life for women participating in an intervention involving a computerized screening for partner violence with a partner violence resource list, an intervention with only a violence resource list, or no intervention at all over a one-year follow-up period?
- No significant differences were observed in the QOL physical health component between Group 1 (Screen and resource list) (n=801; mean score, 46.8; 95% CI, 46.1-47.4), Group 2 (Resource list only) (n=772; mean score, 46.4; 95% CI, 45.8-47.1), and Group 3 (Control) (n=791; mean score, 47.2; 95% CI, 46.5-47.8) at the 1-year follow-up.
- No significant differences were observed between the three groups on the mental health component (Group 1: Mean score, 48.3; 95% CI, 47.5-49.1; Group 2: Mean score, 48.0; 95% CI, 47.2-48.9; Group 3: Mean score, 47.8; 95% CI, 47.0-48.6).
- No significant differences were seen between the three groups on the the outcomes of: number of days unable to work (p=0.96) or complete housework (p=0.66), hospitalizations (p=0.40), visits from ambulatory care (p=0.12) or the emergency department (p=0.40), recurrence of partner violence (Screened group compared to control: p=0.16; Resource list group compared to control: p=0.12), or patients who contacted a partner violence agency (Screened group compared to control: p=0.60; Resource list group compared to control: p=0.21).
De quoi dois-je me souvenir en priorité ?
No significant improvement of health-related quality of life was observed when women seeking care in outpatient clinical settings were provided a partner violence resource list with or without a screening intervention compared to controls.
Comment cela affectera-t-il les soins prodigués à mes patients ?
Computerized partner violence screening and the provision of a partner violence resource list to those who screened positive did not provide any significant improvements in health-related quality of life. It is unclear if the population studied (all outpatients) is representative of an orthopaedic practice (i.e. fracture clinic), and thus difficult to generalize results. Other forms of intervention need to be developed to provide better care for those suffering from partner violence.
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
