The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review
Open accessAbstract
Objective: To assess the evidence for the acceptability and effectiveness of screening women for domestic violence in healthcare settings. Design : Systematic review of published quantitative studies. Search strategy : Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for articles published in the English language up to February 2001. Included studies : Surveys that elicited the attitudes of women and health professionals on the screening of women in health settings; comparative studies conducted in healthcare settings that measured rates of identification of domestic violence in the presence and absence of screening; studies measuring outcomes of interventions for women identified in health settings who experience abuse from a male partner or ex-partner compared with abused women not receiving an intervention. Results : 20 papers met the inclusion criteria. In four surveys, 43-85% of women respondents found screening in healthcare settings acceptable. Two surveys of health professionals' views found that two thirds of physicians and almost half of emergency department nurses were not in favour of screening. In nine studies of screening compared with no screening, most detected a greater proportion of abused women identified by healthcare professionals. Six studies of interventions used weak study designs and gave inconsistent results. Other than increased referral to outside agencies, little evidence exists for changes in important outcomes such as decreased exposure to violence. No studies measured quality of life, mental health outcomes, or potential harm to women from screening programmes. Conclusion: Although domestic violence is a common problem with major health consequences for women, implementation of screening programmes in healthcare settings cannot be justified. Evidence of the benefit of specific interventions and lack of harm from screening is needed.
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.
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
Cited by
Intimate Partner Violence and Women’s Physical, Mental, and Social Functioning
Bonomi, A. E., Thompson, R. S., Anderson, M., Reid, R. J., Carrell, D., Dimer, J. A., & Rivara, F. P. (2006) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2006.01.015 · Cited by 686
Beydoun, 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
Interventions to prevent child maltreatment and associated impairment
MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Barlow, J., Fergusson, D. M., Leventhal, J. M., & Taussig, H. N. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)61708-0 · Cited by 654
Feder, G. S. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.1.22 · Cited by 641
Self-citationInterventions for Violence Against Women: Scientific Review
Wathen, C. N., & MacMillan, H. L. (2003) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.289.5.589 · Cited by 513
Metadata
- Authors
- Ramsay, J., Richardson, J., Carter, Y. H., Davidson, L. L., & Feder, G.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2002-08-10
- Volume
- 325
- Issue
- 7359
- Pages
- 314
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2161188965
- Cited by
- 510
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.325.7359.314
- The paper
- Ramsay, J., Richardson, J., Carter, Y. H., Davidson, L. L., & Feder, G. (2002). Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7359.314
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.