The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Use of Online Safety Decision Aid by Abused Women
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
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 cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,603
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Lewis, K., Barry, M. J., Bennett, C. L., Eden, K. B., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2017) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub5 · Cited by 6,685
Self-citationHealth consequences of intimate partner violence
Campbell, J. C. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)08336-8 · Cited by 4,055
Self-citationRisk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results From a Multisite Case Control Study
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., et al. (2003) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.93.7.1089 · Cited by 1,550
Self-citationDecision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions
Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Col, N. F., Bennett, C. L., Barry, M. J., Eden, K., Holmes-Rovner, M. M., Llewellyn‐Thomas, H. A., Lyddiatt, A., Thomson, R., et al. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd001431.pub4 · Cited by 1,540
Self-citationOttawa Hospital Research Institute
Bouhassira, E. E. (2015) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781483347660.n335 · Cited by 851
Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy
Campbell, J. C., Glass, N., Sharps, P. W., Laughon, K., & Bloom, T. (2007) · Trauma, Violence, & Abuse · doi:10.1177/1524838007303505 · Cited by 698
Self-citationBeydoun, 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
Campbell, J. C., Webster, D. W., & Glass, N. (2009) · Journal of Interpersonal Violence · doi:10.1177/0886260508317180 · Cited by 650
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–103 of 103
Słowik, M., Łuczak, M. J., & Maraszkiewicz, M. (2025) · Family Forum · doi:10.25167/ff/5757
Micklitz, H. M., Nagel, Z., Jahn, S., Oertelt‐Prigione, S., Andersson, G., & Sander, L. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23826929
Berry-Cabán, C. S., Nash, L. N., Beltran, T., Robichaux, K. N., Petrillo, C., & Portee, C. L. (2026) · Military Medicine · doi:10.1093/milmed/usag295
Metadata
- 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.
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Preventive Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-04
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 372-383
- ISSN
- 0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4380709
- 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
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- 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
