The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Screening and Intervention for Intimate Partner Abuse: Practices and Attitudes of Primary Care Physicians
Abstract
CONTEXT: Although practice guidelines encouraging the screening of patients for intimate partner abuse have been available for several years, it is unclear how well and in which circumstances physicians adhere to them. OBJECTIVE: To describe the practices and perceptions of primary care physicians regarding intimate partner abuse screening and interventions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of a stratified probability sample of 900 physicians practicing family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics/gynecology in California. After meeting exclusion criteria, 582 were eligible for participation in the study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reported abuse screening practices in a variety of clinic settings, based on a 24-item questionnaire, with responses compared by physician sex, practice setting, and intimate partner abuse training. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 400 (69%) of the 582 eligible physicians, including 149 family physicians, 115 internists, and 136 obstetrician/gynecologists. Data were weighted to estimate the practices of primary care physicians in California. An estimated majority (79%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 75%-83%) of these primary care physicians routinely screen injured patients for intimate partner abuse. However, estimated routine screening was less common for new patient visits (10%; 95% CI, 7%-13%), periodic checkups (9%; 95% CI, 6%-12%), and prenatal care (11%; 95% CI, 7%-15%). Neither physician sex nor recent intimate partner abuse training had significant effects on reported new patient screening practices. Obstetrician/gynecologists (17%) and physicians practicing in public clinic settings (37%) were more likely to screen new patients. Internists (6%) and physicians practicing in health maintenance organizations (1%) were least likely to screen new patients. Commonly reported routine interventions included relaying concern for safety (91%), referral to shelters (79%) and counseling (88%), and documentation in the medical chart (89%). Commonly cited barriers to identification and referral included the patients' fear of retaliation (82%) and police involvement (55%), lack of patient disclosure (78%) and follow-up (52%), and cultural differences (56%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that primary care physicians are missing opportunities to screen patients for intimate partner abuse in a variety of clinical situations. Further studies are needed to identify effective intervention strategies and improve adherence to intimate partner abuse practice guidelines.
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
Guide to Clinical Preventive Services
Wesley Allen, T. (1991) · The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association · doi:10.1515/jom-1991-900515 · Cited by 2,129
Davis, D. A. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03530090032018 · Cited by 1,763
Societal change and change in family violence from 1975 to 1985 as revealed by two national surveys
Straus, M. A., & Gelles, R. J. (1986) · Journal of Marriage and the Family · doi:10.2307/352033 · Cited by 1,592
Walker, L. E. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,546
McFarlane, J. (1992) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480230068030 · Cited by 1,001
Guide to Clinical Preventive Services
&NA; (1997) · The Nurse Practitioner · doi:10.1097/00006205-199705000-00020 · Cited by 906
Prevalence of Violence Against Pregnant Women
Gazmararian, J. A. (1996) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03530480057041 · Cited by 749
McCauley, J., Kern, D. E., Kolodner, K., Dill, L., Schroeder, A. F., DeChant, H. K., Ryden, J., Bass, E. B., & Derogatis, L. R. (1995) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-123-10-199511150-00001 · Cited by 741
Domestic violence against women. Incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population
Abbott, J. (1995) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.273.22.1763 · Cited by 589
(1998) · PubMed · Cited by 585
Cited by
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
Intimate Partner Violence and Adverse Health Consequences: Implications for Clinicians
Black, M. C. (2011) · American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine · doi:10.1177/1559827611410265 · Cited by 500
Kramer, A., Lorenzon, D., & Mueller, G. (2004) · Women's Health Issues · doi:10.1016/j.whi.2003.12.002 · Cited by 306
Andersson, N., Ho-Foster, A., Mitchell, S., Scheepers, E., & Goldstein, S. (2007) · BMC Women's Health · doi:10.1186/1472-6874-7-11 · Cited by 171
Intimate Partner Violence Among Men
Reid, R. J., Bonomi, A. E., Rivara, F. P., Anderson, M. L., Fishman, P. A., Carrell, D. S., & Thompson, R. S. (2008) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.029 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Rodriguez, M. A., Bauer, H. M., McLoughlin, E., & Grumbach, K.
- Venue
- JAMA
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 1999-08-04
- Volume
- 282
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 468
- ISSN
- 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
- 0098-7484
- OpenAlex
- W1965166106
- Cited by
- 462
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 28.00
- 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 and Intervention for Intimate Partner Abuse: Practices and Attitudes of Primary Care Physicians. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.282.5.468
- The paper
- Rodriguez, M. A., Bauer, H. M., McLoughlin, E., & Grumbach, K. (1999). Screening and Intervention for Intimate Partner Abuse: Practices and Attitudes of Primary Care Physicians. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.282.5.468
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.