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>
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population
Radloff, L. S. (1977) · Applied Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 · Cited by 53,267
WARE, J. E., KOSINSKI, M., & KELLER, S. D. (1996) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-199603000-00003 · Cited by 17,392
Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment
THE WHOQOL GROUP (1998) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291798006667 · Cited by 7,933
Measuring Intrafamily Conflict and Violence: The Conflict Tactics (CT) Scales
Straus, M. A. (1979) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/351733 · Cited by 6,187
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000062554.74615.4c · Cited by 4,700
Bonomi, A. E., Patrick, D. L., Bushnell, D. M., & Martin, M. (2000) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00123-7 · Cited by 558
Interventions for Violence Against Women: Scientific Review
Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.5.589 · Cited by 513
Self-citationShould health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review
Ramsay, J., Richardson, J., Carter, Y. H., Davidson, L. L., & Feder, G. (2002) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7359.314 · Cited by 510
Intimate Partner Violence Screening Tools
Rabin, R. F., Jennings, J. M., Campbell, J. C., & Bair-Merritt, M. H. (2009) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024 · Cited by 469
Rodriguez, M. A., Bauer, H. M., McLoughlin, E., & Grumbach, K. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.5.468 · Cited by 462
Cited by
Beydoun, H. A., Beydoun, M. A., Kaufman, J. S., Lo, B., & Zonderman, A. B. (2012) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.04.025 · Cited by 680
Evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees
Pottie, K., Greenaway, C., Feightner, J., Welch, V., Swinkels, H., Rashid, M., Narasiah, L., Kirmayer, L. J., Ueffing, E., MacDonald, N. E., et al. (2011) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.090313 · Cited by 526
Radtke, K. M., Ruf, M., Gunter, H. M., Dohrmann, K., Schauer, M., Meyer, A., & Elbert, T. (2011) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2011.21 · Cited by 511
Feder, G., Davies, R. A., Baird, K., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Griffiths, C., Gregory, A., Howell, A., Johnson, M., Ramsay, J., et al. (2011) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61179-3 · Cited by 406
Trauma Informed Care in Medicine: Current Knowledge and Future Research Directions
Raja, S., Hasnain, M., Hoersch, M., Gove-Yin, S., & Rajagopalan, C. (2015) · Family & Community Health · doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000071 · Cited by 416
Metadata
- Authors
- MacMillan, H. L.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- 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.