Cited by 406Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) of women experiencing domestic violence with a primary care training and support programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Feder, Gene, Davies, Roxane Agnew, Baird, Kathleen, Dunne, Danielle, Eldridge, Sandra, Griffiths, Chris, Gregory, Alison, Howell, Annie +4 more·2011·The Lancet

Abstract

Background Most clinicians have no training about domestic violence, fail to identify patients experiencing abuse, and are uncertain about management after disclosure. We tested the effectiveness of a programme of training and support in primary health-care practices to increase identification of women experiencing domestic violence and their referral to specialist advocacy services.Methods In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we selected general practices in two urban primary care trusts, Hackney (London) and Bristol, UK. Practices in which investigators from this trial were employed or those who did not use electronic records were excluded. Practices were stratified by proportion of female doctors, postgraduate training status, number of patients registered, and percentage of practice population on low incomes. Within every primary care trust area, we randomised practices with a computer-minimisation programme with a random component to intervention or control groups. The intervention programme included practice-based training sessions, a prompt within the medical record to ask about abuse, and a referral pathway to a named domestic violence advocate, who also delivered the training and further consultancy. The primary outcome was recorded referral of patients to domestic violence advocacy services. The prespecified secondary outcome was recorded identification of domestic violence in the electronic medical records of the general practice. Poisson regression analyses accounting for clustering were done for all practices receiving the intervention. Practice staff and research associates were not masked and patients were not aware they were part of a study. This study is registered at Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN74012786.Findings We randomised 51 (61%) of 84 eligible general practices in Hackney and Bristol. Of these, 24 received a training and support programme, 24 did not receive the programme, and three dropped out before the trial started. 1 year after the second training session, the 24 intervention practices recorded 223 referrals of patients to advocacy and the 24 control practices recorded 12 referrals (adjusted intervention rate ratio 22·1 [95% CI 11·5-42·4]). Intervention practices recorded 641 disclosures of domestic violence and control practices recorded 236 (adjusted intervention rate ratio 3·1 [95% CI 2·2-4·3). No adverse events were recorded.Interpretation A training and support programme targeted at primary care clinicians and administrative staff improved referral to specialist domestic violence agencies and recorded identification of women experiencing domestic violence. Our findings reduce the uncertainty about the benefit of training and support interventions in primary care settings for domestic violence and show that screening of women patients for domestic violence is not a necessary condition for improved identification and referral to advocacy services.Funding Health Foundation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(11)61179-3

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feder, G., Davies, R. A., Baird, K., Dunne, D., Eldridge, S., Griffiths, C., Gregory, A., Howell, A., Johnson, M., Ramsay, J., Rutterford, C., & Sharp, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University of the West of England (GB)
  • University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Feder, Gene
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
378
Issue
9805
Pages
1788-1795
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
OpenAlex
W2099573012
Cited by
406
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 26
FWCI
25.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UWE Research Repository (UWE Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Fonds National de la Recherche Luxembourg
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging
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
domestic violence, women, primary care, clinician training, domestic violence screening, disclosure, general practice, electronic health records, iris, low-income populations, women's health services, health disparities, child abuse
MeSH terms
Education, Medical, Continuing, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Primary Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Cluster Analysis, Domestic Violence, General Practice

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