 |
|
Who Gets Screened During Pregnancy for Partner Violence?
Kathryn Andersen Clark, MS;
Sandra L. Martin, PhD;
Ruth Petersen, MD, MPH;
Suzanne Cloutier, MS;
Deborah Covington, DrPH;
Paul Buescher, PhD;
Michelle Beck-Warden, MS
Arch Fam Med. 2000;9:1093-1099.
Context Despite recommendations to screen prenatal care patients for partner violence, the prevalence of such screening is unknown.
Objectives To estimate the statewide prevalence of partner violence screening during prenatal care among a representative sample of North Carolina women with newborns and to compare women screened for partner violence with women not screened.
Design, Setting, and Participants This investigation examines data gathered through the North Carolina Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System, a random sample of more than 2600 recently postpartum women who were delivered of newborns between July 1997 and December 1998.
Main Outcome Measures Self-reports of violence, health service factors, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Analysis The prevalence of screening was computed, and odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used to examine bivariate and multivariable associations between being screened for partner violence and other factors.
Results Thirty-seven percent of women reported being screened for partner violence during prenatal care. Logistic regression analysis found that women were more likely to be screened if they received prenatal care from (1) a public provider paid by a public source; (2) a private provider paid by a public source; or (3) a public provider paid by a private source.
Conclusions These findings suggest that the majority of prenatal care patients in North Carolina are not screened for partner violence. Screening appears to be most highly associated with whether a woman is a patient in the public sector or the private sector, and with the source of payment for prenatal care.
From the Department of Maternal and Child Health (Ms Clark and Drs Petersen and Martin); Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research (Ms Clark and Dr Petersen); and the Department of Epidemiology (Ms Cloutier), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Research Department, Coastal Area Health Education Center, Wilmington, and School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Covington); and State Center for Health Statistics, Raleigh, NC (Dr Buescher and Ms Beck-Warden).
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Preparing the Next Generation of Physicians: Medical School and Residency-Based Intimate Partner Violence Curriculum and Evaluation
Hamberger
Trauma Violence Abuse 2007;8:214-225.
ABSTRACT
Interactions Between Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women and the Health Care System: Policy and Practice Implications
Plichta
Trauma Violence Abuse 2007;8:226-239.
ABSTRACT
Physical and Sexual Violence During Pregnancy and After Delivery: A Prospective Multistate Study of Women With or at Risk for HIV Infection
Koenig et al.
AJPH 2006;96:1052-1059.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Successful integration and maintenance of screening for domestic violence in the health sector: moving beyond individual responsibility.
Thurston and Eisener
Trauma Violence Abuse 2006;7:83-92.
ABSTRACT
Intimate Partner Violence and Women's Depression Before and During Pregnancy
Martin et al.
Violence Against Women 2006;12:221-239.
ABSTRACT
Survey Data Sets Pertinent to the Study of Intimate Partner Violence and Health
Campbell et al.
Trauma Violence Abuse 2006;7:3-18.
ABSTRACT
Mutable Influences on Intimate Partner Abuse Screening in Health Care Settings: A Synthesis of the Literature
Stayton and Duncan
Trauma Violence Abuse 2005;6:271-285.
ABSTRACT
Health Care Workers' Expectations and Empathy toward Patients in Abusive Relationships
Nicolaidis et al.
J Am Board Fam Med 2005;18:159-165.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Homicide Risk Factors Among Pregnant Women Abused by Their Partners: Who Leaves the Perpetrator and Who Stays?
Decker et al.
Violence Against Women 2004;10:498-513.
ABSTRACT
Physical Abuse of Women Before, During, and After Pregnancy
Martin et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1581-1584.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
