Cited by 103Intimate Partner and Family ViolencePatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility

Use of Online Safety Decision Aid by Abused Women

Open access
Eden, Karen B., Perrin, Nancy A., Hanson, Ginger C., Messing, Jill T., Bloom, Tina L., Campbell, Jacquelyn C., Gielen, Andrea C., Clough, Amber S. +2 more·2015·American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Background An Internet safety decision aid was developed to help abused women understand their risk for repeat and near-lethal intimate partner violence, clarify priorities related to safety, and develop an action plan customized to these priorities.Purpose To test the effectiveness of a safety decision aid compared with usual safety planning (control) delivered through a secure website, using a multistate RCT design. The paper evaluates the effectiveness of the safety decision aid in reducing decisional conflict after a single use by abused women.Design RCT referred to as Internet Resource for Intervention and Safety (IRIS).Setting/participants Abused women who spoke English (n=708) were enrolled in a four-state RCT.Intervention The intervention was an interactive safety decision aid with personalized safety plan; the control condition was usual safety planning resources. Both were delivered to participants through the secure study website.Main outcome measures This paper compares women's decisional conflict about safety: total decisional conflict and the four subscales of this measure (feeling: uninformed, uncertain, unsupported, and unclear about safety priorities) between intervention/control conditions. Data were collected from March 2011 to May 2013 and analyzed from January to March 2014.Results Immediately following the first use of the interactive safety decision aid, intervention women had significantly lower total decisional conflict than control women, controlling for baseline value of decisional conflict (p=0.002, effect size=0.12). After controlling for baseline values, the safety decision aid group had significantly greater reduction in feeling uncertain (p=0.006, effect size=0.07) and in feeling unsupported (p=0.008, effect size=0.07) about safety than the usual safety planning group.Conclusions Abused women randomized to the safety decision aid reported less decisional conflict about their safety in the abusive intimate relationship after one use compared to women randomized to the usual safety planning condition.

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 · 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.09.027

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • The lack of differences by study arm is consistent with the overall pattern of results found in 3 completed trials that also tested versions of a tailored intervention with the same core components, modified to fit different countries and contexts, against a non-tailored intervention [25, 37-39].

    “The lack of differences by study arm is consistent with the overall pattern of results found in 3 completed trials that also tested versions of a tailored intervention with the same core components, modified to fit different countries and contexts, against a non-tailored intervention [25, 37–39].”

    From Longitudinal impacts of an online safety and health intervention for women experiencing intimate partner violence: randomized controlled trial (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 1 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [31]Ghanbarpour SA Understanding factors that influence the practice of safety strategies by victims of intimate partner violence Johns Hopkins University Dissertation 2011

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eden, K. B., Perrin, N. A., Hanson, G. C., Messing, J. T., Bloom, T. L., Campbell, J. C., Gielen, A. C., Clough, A. S., Barnes-Hoyt, J. S., & Glass, N. E.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Arizona State University (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Eden, Karen B.
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-04
Volume
48
Issue
4
Pages
372-383
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1677634272
Cited by
103
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5
FWCI
8.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health of the NIH (R01MH085641)
  • ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01312103)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, safety planning, decisional conflict, battered women, online intervention
MeSH terms
Adult, Conflict, Psychological, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Humans, Safety, United States, Risk Assessment, Battered Women, Internet

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