CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 72Intimate Partner and Family ViolenceElder Abuse and NeglectSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Effect of an in-clinic IPV advocate intervention to increase help seeking, reduce violence, and improve well-being

Open access
Coker, Ann L., Smith, Paige H., Whitaker, Daniel J., Le, Brenda, Crawford, Timothy N., Flerx, Vicki C.·2012·Violence Against Women
DOI 10.1177/1077801212437908
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This quasi-experimental study investigated the efficacy of clinic-based advocacy for intimate partner violence (IPV) to increase help seeking, reduce violence, and improve women's well-being. Eligible and consenting women attending one of six selected clinics in the rural Southern United States were assessed for IPV. Consenting women disclosing IPV were offered either an in-clinic advocate intervention or usual care, depending on the clinic they attended and were followed for up to 24 months. Over follow-up time both IPV scores and depressive symptoms trended toward greater decline among women in the advocate intervention clinics relative to the usual care (business card referral only).

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1077801212437908

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Survivor-focused advocacy/case management interventions showed good to moderate evidence of positive impact on mental health outcomes and access to social support, and in a few studies a reduction in partner aggression or experience of IPV.

    “The studies showed good to moderate evidence of the positive impact of these interventions on mental health outcomes and also access to social support for the IPV survivors included in the study, and in a few studies, a reduction in partner aggression or experience of IPV (IPV scores) [15–23].”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Outcome Evaluation (page unavailable) reports significantly lower depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation over time in the advocate clinics, with IPV scores trending toward greater decline than in usual care. The Discussion (page unavailable) says the intervention did not improve help-seeking beyond contact with the advocate, so this study does not support a broader improvement in access to social support. It also does not grade the evidence across studies as ‘good to moderate.’ (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Only few advocate-based studies and 1 community-focused intervention reported an impact on IPV with good level of evidence.

    “However, it must be noted that only few of the advocate-based studies and 1 of the community-focused interventions reported an impact on IPV, with good level of evidence [15, 20–23, 34], similar to what has been found in other reviews of advocate-based interventions on intimate partner violence [45].”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) says few clinic-based IPV interventions had been evaluated and reports that the in-clinic advocate intervention reduced IPV scores. This supports the general comparison, but this paper is a primary intervention study, not one of the “other reviews” the citing sentence attributes to [45]. It does not assess the number or evidence quality of community-focused interventions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Two studies, an in-clinic advocacy intervention by Coker et al and a home-based advocate intervention by Sharps et al, resulted in a significant reduction in the experience of intimate partner violence by the survivors.

    “Two of the studies, an in-clinic advocacy intervention by Coker et al [23] and a home-based advocate intervention by Sharps et al [20] resulted in a significant reduction in the experience of intimate partner violence by the survivors”

    From A systematic review of intimate partner violence interventions focused on improving social support and/ mental health outcomes of survivors (2020) · cites this paper as [23]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Coker, A. L., Smith, P. H., Whitaker, D. J., Le, B., Crawford, T. N., & Flerx, V. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Kentucky (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Greensboro (US)
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • Clemson University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Violence Against Women
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2012-01
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
118-131
ISSN
  • 1077-8012 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-8448
DOI
10.1177/1077801212437908
OpenAlex
W2171237416
Cited by
72
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Violence Against Women (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion)
  • Journal of Bioresource Management (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (US4CCU419014)
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, help-seeking, violence reduction, women's well-being, depressive symptoms, rural women, referral services
MeSH terms
Adult, Ambulatory Care Facilities, Depression, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health, Humans, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Patient Advocacy, Referral and Consultation, Sexual Partners, Social Support, Spouse Abuse, United States, Women's Health Services, Treatment Outcome, Battered Women, Standard of Care

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