GENERAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Effect of Screening for Partner Violence on Women's Quality of Life: a randomized controlled trial
This report has been verified
by one or more authors of the
original publication.
この研究はハイインパクトの可能性があります。
OEのAI駆動型ハイインパクト指標は、論文が掲載されたジャーナルと論文自体の科学的内容の両方からのシグナルを統合することで、論文が持つ可能性の高い影響力を推定します。
最先端の自然言語処理を用いて開発されたOEハイインパクトモデルは、ジャーナルのインパクトファクターのみよりも、研究の将来の引用実績をより正確に予測します。
これにより、臨床的に意義のある研究をより早く認識することが可能になり、読者は将来の診療を形成する可能性が最も高い論文に集中することができます。
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)?
はい = 1
不確実＝0.5
無関係 = 0
いいえ = 0
報告基準評価では、著者が出版物内で試験の方法論的特徴や試験特性を報告する際の透明性を評価します。評価は以下の5つのカテゴリーに分類されます。
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
Fragility Indexは、重要な所見の解釈を助けるツールで、結果の強さの尺度を提供します。Fragility Indexは、その所見が有意でなくなるために、二項対立の結果に追加する必要がある連続した事象の数を表します。数値が小さいほど弱い所見を表し、数値が大きいほど強い所見を表します。
なぜ今この研究が必要なのですか？
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.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
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?
重要な知見は？
- 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).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
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.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
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.
免責事項
このページに記載されている内容は、情報提供のみを目的としたものであり、専門的な医療アドバイス、診断、治療の代わりとなるものではありません。治療が必要な場合は、必ず医師の診断を仰ぐか、最寄りの救急外来を受診してください。このページに記載されている内容に関して個人が表明した意見、信念、見解は、OrthoEvidenceの意見、信念、見解を反映するものではありません。
0の4 月間無料記事のロック解除
