Cited by 34Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment

Feasibility of an Online Safety Planning Intervention for Rural and Urban Pregnant Abused Women

Bloom, Tina L., Glass, Nancy E., Case, James, Wright, Courtney, Nolte, Kimberly, Parsons, Lindsay·2014·Nursing Research

Abstract

Background Intimate partner violence (IPV) in pregnancy is common and harmful to maternal-child health. Safety planning is the gold standard for intervention, but most abused women never access safety planning. Pregnant women may face increased barriers to safety planning and risk of severe IPV, particularly if they are also rural residents. Internet-based safety planning interventions may be useful, but no such interventions specific to the needs of pregnant women have been developed. Objectives The aim was to evaluate feasibility (usability, safety, and acceptability) of Internet-based safety planning for rural and urban abused pregnant women and practicality of recruitment procedures for future trials. Methods An existing Internet-based safety decision aid for pregnant and postpartum women was adapted; initial content validity was established with survivors of IPV, advocates, and national IPV experts; and a convenience sample of community-dwelling abused pregnant women was recruited and randomized into two groups to test the decision aid. Results Fifty-nine participants were enrolled; 46 completed the baseline session, 41% of whom (n = 19) resided in nonmetropolitan counties. Participants' average gestational age was 20.2 weeks, and 28.3% resided with the abusive partner. Participants reported severe IPV at baseline (mean Danger Assessment score of 16.1), but all were able to identify a safe computer, and 73.9% completed the baseline session in less than 1 week, with no ad…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/nnr.0000000000000036

Cites

1 of 1 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bloom, T. L., Glass, N. E., Case, J., Wright, C., Nolte, K., & Parsons, L.
Affiliations
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Nursing Research
Published
2014-07
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
243-251
ISSN
0029-6562 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007815483
Cited by
34
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Nursing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Health › Intimate Partner and Family Violence
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Maternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Keywords
intimate partner violence, pregnancy, safety planning, online intervention, decision aids, rural women, urban women, feasibility, acceptability, content validity, domestic violence, maternal health, postpartum women
MeSH terms
Adult, Butanones, Computer-Assisted Instruction, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Maryland, Maternal Health Services, Missouri, Mothers, Oregon, Pregnancy, Rural Population, Spouse Abuse, Urban Population, Safety Management, Battered Women, Internet, Pregnant People, Postpartum Period, Young Adult

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