Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 462

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

Rodriguez, Michael A., Bauer, Heidi M., McLoughlin, Elizabeth, Grumbach, Kevin·1999·JAMA

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.282.5.468

Cites

48 of 48 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 48 references

Cited by

See all 462

Metadata

Authors
Rodriguez, M. A., Bauer, H. M., McLoughlin, E., & Grumbach, K.
Venue
JAMA
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.