GENERAL ORTHOPAEDICS
Screening and counselling in the primary care setting for women who have experienced intimate partner violence (WEAVE): a cluster randomised 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(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)?
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
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
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？
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.
主な研究課題は何ですか？
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?
重要な知見は？
- 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).
最も覚えておくべきことは？
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.
それが私の患者ケアにどのように影響するか？
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.
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
