Cited by 23Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Safety-promoting behaviors of community-dwelling abused Chinese women after an advocacy intervention: A randomized controlled trial

Tiwari, Agnes, Fong, Daniel Y.T., Wong, Janet Y.H., Yuen, Kwan-hok, Yuk, Helina, Pang, Polly, Humphreys, Janice, Bullock, Linda·2012·International Journal of Nursing Studies

Abstract

Objective To examine the effect of an advocacy intervention on the use of safety-promoting behaviors in community-dwelling abused Chinese women as compared to a control condition of usual care. Design This efficacy trial used a randomized controlled, parallel group design. Participants and methods A total of 200 Chinese women in a community setting who screened positive for intimate partner violence using the Chinese version of the Abuse Assessment Screen were randomized to receive either an advocacy intervention (intervention group, n=100) or usual community care (control group, n=100). The outcome measured was the change in the self-reported safety-promoting behaviors as measured by the Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist over three time-points (baseline, 3-month follow-up and 9-month follow-up). Participants and assessors were blinded to the study hypothesis. Assessors were further blinded to the group membership of the participants. Results The Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist scores in the intervention group increased from the baseline on average by 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92-6.39) at 3-month and 6.65 (95% CI, 5.90-7.39) at 9-month follow-ups, while the scores in the control group also increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.37) at 3-month and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.15-2.43) at 9-month follow-ups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the between-group differences in scores were significant at 3-month and 9-month follow-ups (p=0.04). The intervention group increased the scores by 3.61 (95% CI, 2.61-4.61, p<0.001) more than the control group at 3-month and by 4.53 (95% CI, 3.53-5.53, p<0.001) at 9-month follow-ups. Conclusion An advocacy intervention is efficacious in increasing the use of safety-promoting behaviors as compared to usual community care in community-dwelling abused Chinese women.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.12.005

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • In the Tiwari et al. (2010, 2012) study, the standardized mean difference for emotional abuse scores was -2.04 (CI: -4.08, 0.00), indicating a marginal reduction compared to controls.

    “Tiwari et al. (JAMA, 304(5), 536-543, 2010)-Tiwari et al. (International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(6), 645-655, 2012) SMD = -2.04;CI: -4.08, 0.00”

    From Systematic review on the treatment of emotional abuse victimization in women by an intimate partner (2025) · cites this paper as Tiwari et al. (International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49(6), 645-655, 2012)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tiwari, A., Fong, D. Y. T., Wong, J. Y. H., Yuen, K.-H., Yuk, H., Pang, P., Humphreys, J., & Bullock, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • University of Virginia (US)
Venue
International Journal of Nursing Studies
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-06
Volume
49
Issue
6
Pages
645-655
ISSN
0020-7489 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2023862221
Cited by
23
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Nursing Studies (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
intimate partner violence, domestic violence, advocacy interventions, battered women, community-dwelling women, Chinese women, violence prevention
MeSH terms
Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Patient Advocacy, Safety, Domestic Violence

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