CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 45Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Project WINGS (Women Initiating New Goals of Safety): A randomised controlled trial of a screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment (SBIRT) service to identify and address intimate partner violence victimisation among substance‐using women receiving community supervision

Gilbert, Louisa, Shaw, Stacey A., Goddard‐Eckrich, Dawn, Chang, Mingway, Rowe, Jessica, McCrimmon, Tara, Almonte, Maria, Goodwin, Sharun +1 more·2015·Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health
DOI 10.1002/cbm.1979
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The high rate of intimate partner violence (IPV) victimisation found among substance-using women receiving community supervision underscores the need for effective IPV victimisation screening, brief intervention and referral to treatment services (SBIRT) for this population. AIMS: This randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to assess the feasibility, safety and efficacy of a single-session computerised self-paced IPV SBIRT (Computerised WINGS) in identifying IPV victimisation among women under community supervision and increasing access to IPV services, compared to the same IPV SBIRT service delivered by a case manager (Case Manager WINGS). METHODS: This RCT was conducted with 191 substance-using women in probation and community court sites in New York City. RESULTS: No significant differences were found between Computerised and Case Manager WINGS arms on any outcomes. Both arms reported identical high rates of any physical, sexual or psychological IPV victimisation in the past year (77% for both arms) during the intervention. Both arms experienced significant increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up in receipt of IPV services, social support, IPV self-efficacy and abstinence from drug use. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that both modalities of WINGS show promise in identifying and addressing IPV victimisation among substance-using women receiving community supervision.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cbm.1979

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Gilbert et al's study found no significant differences between online and case manager implemented screening, assessment, and referral to treatment intervention groups in terms of impact; both groups had an increase in access to social support, IPV self-efficacy, and abstinence from substance use, irrespective of the type of intervention they received.

    “There were no significant differences between both groups in terms of impact of the interventions, the study found both groups has an increase in access to social support, IPV self-efficacy (ability to protect themselves from IPV) and abstinence from substance use, irrespective of the type of intervention they received.”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [24]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gilbert, L., Shaw, S. A., Goddard‐Eckrich, D., Chang, M., Rowe, J., McCrimmon, T., Almonte, M., Goodwin, S., & Epperson, M.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University (US)
  • Center for Justice Innovation (US)
  • New York City Department of Probation (US)
  • University of Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Gilbert, Louisa
ORCID
Venue
Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-10
Volume
25
Issue
4
Pages
314-329
ISSN
  • 0957-9664 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2857
DOI
10.1002/cbm.1979
OpenAlex
W2116148631
Cited by
45
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
3.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 19 d)
Locations
  • Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ScholarsArchive (Brigham Young University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R34DA031325)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, community supervision, probation, SBIRT, social support, drug abstinence, feasibility and safety
MeSH terms
Intimate Partner Violence, Adult, Feasibility Studies, Female, Goals, Humans, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Referral and Consultation, Residence Characteristics, Sexual Behavior, Treatment Outcome, Crime Victims, Substance-Related Disorders, Drug Users, Young Adult, Bullying

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