Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>

MacMillan, Harriet L.·2009·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Whether intimate partner violence (IPV) screening reduces violence or improves health outcomes for women is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of IPV screening and communication of positive results to clinicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trial conducted in 11 emergency departments, 12 family practices, and 3 obstetrics/gynecology clinics in Ontario, Canada, among 6743 English-speaking female patients aged 18 to 64 years who presented between July 2005 and December 2006, could be seen individually, and were well enough to participate. INTERVENTION: Women in the screened group (n=3271) self-completed the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST); if a woman screened positive, this information was given to her clinician before the health care visit. Subsequent discussions and/or referrals were at the discretion of the treating clinician. The nonscreened group (n=3472) self-completed the WAST and other measures after their visit. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women disclosing past-year IPV were interviewed at baseline and every 6 months until 18 months regarding IPV reexposure and quality of life (primary outcomes), as well as several health outcomes and potential harms of screening. RESULTS: Participant loss to follow-up was high: 43% (148/347) of screened women and 41% (148/360) of nonscreened women. At 18 months (n = 411), observed recurrence of IPV among screened vs nonscreened women was 46% vs 53% (modeled odds ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-2.12). Screened vs nonscreened women exhibited about a 0.2-SD greater improvement in quality-of-life scores (modeled score difference at 18 months, 3.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-7.00). When multiple imputation was used to account for sample loss, differences between groups were reduced and quality-of-life differences were no longer significant. Screened women reported no harms of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Although sample attrition urges cautious interpretation, the results of this trial do not provide sufficient evidence to support IPV screening in health care settings. Evaluation of services for women after identification of IPV remains a priority. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182468.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.2009.1089

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
MacMillan, H. L.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2009-08-05
Volume
302
Issue
5
Pages
493
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2105067075
Cited by
416
References
29
FWCI
39.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.2009.1089
The paper
MacMillan, H. L. (2009). Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings<subtitle>A Randomized Trial</subtitle>. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2009.1089

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.