Background: Family and intimate partner violence commonly occurs in the U.S. and is often associated with acute and chronic health problems. Although the clinician's role in identification and intervention is considered a professional, ethical, and sometimes legal responsibility, the effectiveness of screening is uncertain.

Purpose: To examine evidence on the benefits and harms of screening women and elderly adults in health care settings for family and intimate partner violence.

Data Sources: MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Health & Psychosocial Instruments, AARP Ageline®, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, reference lists, and experts.

Study Selection: English-language studies that included original data focusing on the performance of screening instruments (14 studies for women, 3 for elderly) and the effectiveness of interventions based in health care settings (2 studies for women, none for elderly).

Data Extraction: Study design, patient populations and settings, methods of assessment or intervention, and outcome measures were extracted, and a set of criteria was applied to evaluate study quality.

Data Synthesis: No trials of the effectiveness of screening in a health care setting in reducing harm have been published. Several screening instruments have been developed; some have demonstrated fair to good internal consistency and some have been validated with longer instruments, but none have been evaluated against measurable violence or health outcomes. Few intervention studies have been conducted. Existing intervention studies focused on pregnant women; study limitations restrict their interpretation.

Conclusion: Although the literature on family and intimate partner violence is extensive, few studies provide data on its detection and management to guide clinicians.

Key words: screening, intervention, family violence, elder abuse, intimate partner abuse, domestic violence, systematic review, evidence-based medicine.

As many as 1 to 4 million women are physically, sexually, or emotionally abused by their intimate partners each year in the U.S.,^1,2 with 31 percent of all women reporting lifetime abuse.³ Prevalence rates of abuse in clinical samples range from 4 percent to 44 percent within the past year and from 21 percent to 55 percent over a lifetime.^4-14 The incidence of acute cases in emergency care settings ranges from 2 percent to 7 percent.¹⁵ Approximately 20 percent of female teenage survey respondents reported being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.¹⁶ Although violence by women against men also occurs, women are 7 to 14 times more likely to suffer severe physical injury from an assault by an intimate partner.¹⁷

Approximately 551,000 older adults in domestic settings were abused and/or neglected in 1996.¹⁸ A random-sample survey of a community population indicated a prevalence rate of 32 per 1000 for physical violence, verbal aggression, and neglect.¹⁹ Complicating these estimates, however, is the difficulty in defining and quantifying elder abuse. Abuse of the elderly takes many forms, including physical, sexual, psychological, and financial exploitation, and neglect.²⁰ Available data indicate that the highest rates of elder abuse are among women and those aged 80 and older.¹⁸ In 90 percent of cases, the perpetrator is a family member, most often an adult child or spouse.¹⁸

Many health problems are associated with abuse and neglect at all ages. These include repercussions of acute trauma, including death, and unwanted pregnancy, as well as long-term physical and mental problems, such as depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, somatization, suicide, and substance abuse.^16,21-30 Children who witness intimate partner violence are at risk for developmental delay, school failure, psychiatric disorders,^31,32 and violence against others.³³

The clinician's role in identification and intervention is considered a professional responsibility by physician and nursing organizations.^34,35 Reporting child and elder abuse to protective services is mandatory in almost all states; 4 states (California, Colorado, Rhode Island, and Kentucky) have laws requiring mandatory reporting of intimate partner violence. Hospitals are also required to address abuse for accreditation.³⁶

Whether screening leads to a decline in abuse is unknown. In the mid-1990s, after several medical organizations recommended screening for intimate partner abuse, rates of abuse declined.³⁷ A systematic review reported that most studies of screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings found that screening detected more abused women than no screening.³⁸ Surveys indicate that 43-85 percent of female respondents consider screening in health care settings acceptable, although only one-third of physicians and half of emergency department nurses favored screening.³⁸ The evidence on how to screen and effectively intervene once problems are identified is limited, and few clinicians routinely screen patients who do not have apparent injuries.^39-44

In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of specific screening instruments to detect family or intimate partner violence, although including questions about abuse in the routine history could be recommended based on prevalence of abuse among adult women and potential value of the information to clinicians.⁴⁵ This report is an update of the current literature on family and intimate partner violence focusing on studies of the performance of screening instruments designed for the clinical setting and the effectiveness of clinical-based interventions for women and elderly adults. A separate report on screening for family violence in children is available elsewhere.⁴⁶

The analytic framework and key questions guiding this review are detailed in Figure 1 (17 KB). Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of MEDLINE® (1966 to December 2002), PsycINFO (1984 to December 2002), CINAHL (1982 to December 2002), Health & Psychosocial Instruments (1985 to December 2002), AARP Ageline (1978 to December 2002), and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Appendix 1). Additional articles were obtained by reviewing 2 recent systematic reviews,^38,47 reference lists of pertinent studies, and by consulting experts.

We defined screening as an assessment of current harm or risk for harm from family and intimate partner violence in asymptomatic persons in a health care setting. Universal screening means assesses everyone; selective screening assesses only those who meet specific criteria. The target populations for this review are women and elderly victims of abuse, where abuse is directed towards them by family members, intimate partners, caretakers, or others with similar relationships. The USPSTF focused this review on these populations because they are the largest at-risk groups in general primary care settings.

Studies included in this review had English-language abstracts; were applicable to U.S. clinical practice; described abuse and violence against women or elderly adults; were conducted in or linked to primary care (i.e., family practice, general internal medicine), obstetrics/gynecology, or emergency department settings; and included a physician or other health care provider in the process of assessment or intervention. We excluded studies about patients presenting with trauma. All eligible studies were reviewed, including those published prior to the 1996 USPSTF recommendation.

Assessment studies were included if they evaluated the performance of verbal or written questionnaires or other assessment procedures, such as physical examinations, that were brief and applicable to the primary care setting. Included studies described the study sample, the screening instrument or procedure, the abuse or neglect outcome, and the collection of data. Outcomes included indicators of physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, and/or sexual abuse and any reported related health outcomes (i.e., depression).

Intervention studies were included if they measured the effectiveness of an intervention in reducing harm from family and intimate partner violence compared with nonintervention or usual care groups. We excluded studies that tested the effectiveness of interventions to educate health care professionals about family violence or to increase screening rates in institutions. We also excluded studies about mandatory reporting laws, descriptions of programs, the accuracy of physician diagnosis and reporting of abuse, and physician factors related to reporting.

From each included study, we abstracted the study design, number of participants, setting, length and type of interventions, length of followup, outcomes, methods of outcome measurement, and study duration, among others. Two reviewers independently rated each study's quality using criteria specific to different study designs developed by the USPSTF (Appendix 2).⁴⁸ When reviewers disagreed, a final score was reached through consensus.

This research was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) under a contract to support the work of the USPSTF. Agency staff and Task Force members participated in the initial design of the study and reviewed interim analyses and the final manuscript. Additional reports were distributed for review to content experts and revised accordingly before preparation of this manuscript. The authors are responsible for the content of the manuscript and the decision to submit it for publication.

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

Screening

Of 806 abstracts identified by database searches, 14 met inclusion criteria. These included 6 studies that compared one instrument with another, 3 that compared an instrument to a directed interview, 2 that measured inter-rater reliability and/or internal consistency, and 3 that compared methods of administration. None evaluated the performance of a screening instrument or procedure using verified abuse outcomes. Screening instruments are described in Appendix 3.^49-61

Six studies compared brief screening instruments with previously validated instruments and were rated good or fair in quality (Table 1).^{15,53,54,56,57,62} Brief instruments were generally correlated to longer instruments and in some cases performed better.

The Hurt Insulted Threatened or Screamed at (HITS) instrument includes 4 questions.⁵⁴ When administered to 259 women in family practice clinics, it demonstrated fair internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80), and its results correlated with the previously validated 19-item Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) (r = 0.85). In urban emergency department settings, the Partner Violence Screen (PVS), consisting of 3 questions, was compared with the 30-item Index of Spouse Abuse (ISA) (sensitivity 64.5 percent; specificity 80.3 percent) and the CTS (sensitivity 71.4 percent; specificity 84.4 percent).⁵³ However, the CTS may not have undergone sufficient testing of its validity to qualify as a gold standard in these studies.

A study of 1,152 predominantly African American women presenting for care at university-affiliated family practice clinics found that the 10-item Women's Experience with Battering (WEB) Scale had a higher detection rate (16 percent) than the 15-item ISA-Physical Scale (10 percent).⁵⁶ Another trial studying predominantly white women in family practice clinics found that the 8-item Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) was correlated to the 25-item Abuse Risk Inventory (r = 0.69).⁵⁷ A study of pregnant women in public prenatal clinics tested the 3-item Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) against the ISA.⁶² Women identified as abused on the AAS also scored significantly higher on the ISA than non-abused women.

The previously validated AAS was modified to detect ongoing abuse, rather than abuse within the previous 12 months, for use in the emergency department setting, and was renamed the Ongoing Abuse Screen (OAS).¹⁵ Women presenting to an emergency department were screened with both instruments as well as with a single question about present abuse. The AAS was positive in 59 percent of women screened, and the OAS was positive in 16 percent. Asking the single question, "Are you presently a victim of intimate partner violence?" was positive in 3 percent of women.

Three studies comparing a screening instrument to an interview were rated as poor quality.^51,52,55 The major limitation of these studies was that no protocol for the directed interview was identified. These studies reported higher detection rates with questionnaires than with interviews.

Two fair-quality studies measured the internal consistency of screening instruments. The Partner Abuse Interview, an 11-item questionnaire modified from the CTS, showed fair internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82) when tested in 90 women at a suburban family practice clinic and university hospital.⁴⁹ The WEB Scale, which was tested in primary care clinics and community groups, showed good internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.99).⁶³

Three fair-quality studies compared methods of administration of screening instruments.^42,50,58 A study of 4,641 women presenting to 11 community emergency departments found that the prevalence of past-year and lifetime violence was significantly higher when a questionnaire containing items from the AAS was self-administered than when it was administered by a nurse.⁴² In another study conducted in an emergency department, reports of abuse were similar when a questionnaire was given as part of a face-to-face-interview (16 percent) and when a taped-recorded questionnaire with a written self-reported answer sheet was provided (15 percent).⁵⁸ In a study at a Planned Parenthood clinic using 4 questions, rates of reported abuse were higher on a nurse-conducted interview (29 percent) than by self-report (7 percent).⁵⁰

Interventions

Of 667 abstracts identified by database searches, only 2 met inclusion criteria (Table 2). These fair-quality studies evaluated interventions for abused, pregnant women and reported lower levels of violence after delivery even when a minimal or "brief" intervention was performed. Neither study had a nonintervention control group.^64,65

In 1 study, 329 pregnant Hispanic women in a prenatal clinic who tested positive for abuse on a screening questionnaire (AAS) were randomized into 1 of 3 groups: "brief" (given wallet-sized card listing community resources); "counseling" (unlimited access to counselor in the clinic); or "outreach" (counseling plus a "mentor mother" in the community).⁶⁴ At 2-month followup, violence scores measured using the Severity of Violence Against Women Scale were significantly lower in the outreach group compared with the counseling group, but not compared with the brief group. However, at the 6-, 12-, and 18-month followup, violence scores were decreased in all groups without statistically significant differences between groups.

In another study of pregnant women in prenatal clinics with positive results on the AAS, 132 received 3 counseling sessions and 67 were offered wallet-sized cards listing community resources.⁶⁵ At 6 and 12 months post delivery, less violence occurred in the intervention group, as measured by the ISA and Severity of Violence Against Women Scale (P = 0.052).

Elder Abuse and Neglect

Screening

Of 1,045 abstracts identified by database searches, 3 studies of elder abuse screening instruments met modified inclusion criteria (Table 3).^60,61,66 None were developed or tested in traditional clinical settings. However, because the care of elderly adults occurs largely outside these settings, studies were included if it appeared that they could be adapted to clinical settings.

A screening instrument for caregivers was tested in 3 groups: abusive and non-abusive caregivers from a social service agency, and non-abusive caregivers from the community.⁶¹ The Caregiver Abuse Screen (CASE) is based on yes or no responses to 8 items. Scores on the CASE distinguished abusers from non-abusers (Cronbach's alpha = 0.71), and correlated with the previously validated Indicator of Abuse (IOA) (r = 0.41; P < 0.001), and Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test (HSEAST) (r = 0.26; P < 0.025).

Two studies described screening elderly adults. One study evaluated 3 groups: victims of abuse, individuals who were referred to adult protective services and were found not to be abused, and non-abused elderly adults from a family practice clinic.⁶⁰ The 15-item HSEAST was administered to all groups and correctly classified 67-74 percent of cases (P < 0.001). The HSEAST was also evaluated in a study of elderly adults living in public housing in Florida.⁶⁶ Abuse status (past abuse or none) was reported by participants and verified by a social worker reviewing their records at the housing authority. Scores for the abused and non-abused were significantly different (mean total score, 4.01 for abused group vs 3.01 for non-abused group; P = 0.049). This study also indicated that a 9-item model, rather than 15, performed as well as the longer version, correctly identifying 71.4 percent of abuse cases with 17 percent false-positive and 12 percent false-negative rates.

Interventions

Of 1,084 abstracts identified by database searches, 72 articles were retrieved for further review; however, none provided data about effective interventions. Some papers provided descriptions of individual elder abuse programs, but none included comparison groups or health outcome measures.

Adverse Effects of Screening and Interventions

No studies were identified that provide data about the adverse effects of screening or interventions. No screening instrument demonstrated 100 percent sensitivity and specificity. False-negative tests may hinder identification of those who are truly at risk. False-positive tests, most common in low-risk populations, can lead to inappropriate labeling and punitive attitudes. Additional possible adverse effects include psychological distress, escalation of abuse and family tension, loss of personal residence and financial resources, erosion of family structure, loss of autonomy for the victim, and lost time from work. Women who leave an abuser can become the target of retaliatory responses that can lead to homicide.⁶⁷

There has been concern that patients may feel uncomfortable or threatened if asked questions about family and intimate partner violence. Most women in a study of screening in antenatal clinics believed it was a good idea (98 percent) and felt "ok" during the process (96 percent) when asked at a subsequent visit.⁶⁸ In another study, only 3 percent of women found 3 screenings, during and after pregnancy, with the AAS unacceptable.⁶⁹ Although most women presenting with their children to a pediatric emergency department believed screening for intimate partner violence was appropriate, many indicated their willingness to disclose might be affected by fear of being reported to child protective services.⁷⁰ This concern was confirmed by clinicians in the study who indicated that they would feel obligated to report a child if violence was present in the home.

A telephone survey of abused and non-abused women in 11 U.S. cities indicated that abused women were less likely to support mandatory reporting compared with non-abused women (59 percent vs 73 percent; P < 0.01). Respondents believed victims would be less likely to disclose abuse, would resent someone else having control of the situation, and reporting would increase the risk for perpetrator retaliation.[[71,72']]

We identified no studies that directly addressed the effectiveness of screening in a health care setting in reducing harm from family and intimate partner violence or the adverse effects of screening and interventions.

Several instruments have been developed for intimate partner violence screening; some have demonstrated fair to good internal consistency, and some have been validated with longer instruments, although none have been evaluated against measurable violence or health outcomes. The optimal methods of administration have not been determined. Few intervention studies have been conducted, and these focused on pregnant women. Outcomes were based on scores on questionnaires and suggest benefit; however, study limitations restrict interpretation.

Few screening instruments have been developed to identify potential elderly victims of abuse or their perpetrators. These instruments performed fairly well when administered in studies, but have not been tested in health care settings. We found no studies of interventions in the elderly.

Other systematic reviews of interventions for victims of intimate partner violence found few studies with outcomes other than the health outcomes we sought.^38,47 Referrals to community resources, shelters, social workers, and police often increased when abused women were identified. However, it is not known if these interventions improved violence or health outcomes because the studies had inadequate study designs to answer these questions and provided inconsistent results.^38,47

The prevalence of abuse and the sensitivity and specificity of screening instruments depend on definitions of abuse (physical, sexual, emotional, combinations) and acuity (current, past, any). These definitions are not standardized across instruments. Performance characteristics of screening instruments are difficult to determine because comparisons of scores from instruments with actual episodes of abuse are lacking and the accuracy of self-report varies widely. The effectiveness of specific screening methods and interventions could also vary by setting, delivery, culture, and population.

Self-reported abuse by the elderly may be compromised by cognitive impairment and overshadowed by other medical problems addressed in health care settings. A more comprehensive approach, including physical examination, caretaker and home evaluations, as well as direct questioning, may be more effective.

There are many gaps in the evidence.⁷³ Definitions and measures of abuse, neglect, severity, and chronicity need to be standardized across studies. Existing screening instruments require more testing and validation in medical settings and in languages other than English.⁷⁴ Little is known about the course of violence during pregnancy and postpartum periods, health implications for the mother and child, the role of violence on reproductive decisionmaking, and what screening and intervention strategies are most effective for pregnant women.

Studies of the effectiveness of treatment programs for abused victims, as well as for perpetrators,^75-77 would provide needed evidence that identification and intervention can lead to improved health outcomes. These outcomes should include not only measures of reduced violence, but also improved quality of life, mental health, social support, self-esteem, productivity, and others.

The feasibility of screening procedures and interventions in health care settings requires evaluations that consider costs, time, resources, clinician consistency, barriers, and patient compliance. Strategies enlisting and evaluating health systems and community programs are needed.⁷⁸

Although the literature on family and intimate partner violence is extensive, there are few studies providing data on its detection and management to guide clinicians. As a result, clinicians confront difficulties fulfilling their role in prevention and treatment of the adverse health effects of violence.

The authors thank members of the USPSTF and reviewers of the full evidence report for their contributions to this project. Patty Davies conducted library searches and Miranda Norbraten helped prepare the manuscript.

This study was conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality under Contract No. 290-97-0018, Task Order No. 2. Dr. McInerney was supported by the Veterans Affairs Special Fellowship in Health Issues of Women Veterans.

1. National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. 1998. Washington D.C.: National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
2. The Commonwealth Fund. First Comprehensive National Health Survey of American Women. 1993. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
3. The Commonwealth Fund. Health Concerns across a Woman's Lifespan: The Commonwealth Fund 1998 Survey of Women's Health. 1999. New York: Commonwealth Fund.
4. Gin NE, Rucker L, Frayne S, Cygan R, Hubbell FA. Prevalence of domestic violence among patients in three ambulatory care internal medicine clinics. J Gen Intern Med 1991;6(4):317-22.
5. Rath GD, Jarratt LG, Leonardson G. Rates of domestic violence against adult women by men partners. J Am Board Fam Prac 1989;2(4):227-33.
6. Martins R, Holzapfel S, Baker P. Wife abuse: are we detecting it? J Womens Health 1992;1(1):77-80.
7. Hamberger LK, Saunders DG, Hovey M. Prevalence of domestic violence in community practice and rate of physician inquiry. Fam Med 1992;24(4):283-7.
8. Abbott J, Johnson R, Koziol-McLain J, Lowenstein SR. Domestic violence against women. Incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population. JAMA 1995;273(22):1763-7.
9. McCauley J, Kern DE, Kolodner K, et al. The "battering syndrome": prevalence and clinical characteristics of domestic violence in primary care internal medicine practices. Ann Intern Med 1995;123(10):737-46.
10. Dearwater SR, Coben JH, Campbell JC, et al. Prevalence of intimate partner abuse in women treated at community hospital emergency departments. JAMA 1998;280(5):433-8.
11. Jones DP. Intervention. Child Abuse Negl 1999;23(12):1341-4.
12. Karus D, Siegel K, Raveis VH. Psychosocial adjustment of women to living with HIV/AIDS. AIDS & Behavior 1999;3(4):277-87.
13. Coker AL, Smith PH, Bethea L, King MR, McKeown RE. Physical health consequences of physical and psychological intimate partner violence. Arch Fam Med 2000;9(5):451-7.
14. Richardson J, Coid J, Petruckevitch A, Chung WS, Moorey S, Feder G. Identifying domestic violence: cross sectional study in primary care. BMJ 2002;324(7332):274.
15. Ernst AA, Weiss SJ, Cham E, Marquez M. Comparison of three instruments for assessing ongoing intimate partner violence. Med Sci Monit 2002;8(3):CR197-201.
16. Silverman JG, Raj A, Mucci LA, Hathaway JE. Dating violence against adolescent girls and associated substance use, unhealthy weight control, sexual risk behavior, pregnancy, and suicidality. JAMA 2001;286(5):572-9.
17. Muelleman RL, Lenaghan PA, Pakieser RA. Battered women: injury locations and types. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28(5):486-92.
18. Tatara T, Kuzmeskus-Blumerman L, Duckhorn E, et al. (By The National Center on Elder Abuse at the American Public Human Services Association in Collaboration with Westat, Inc. for the Administration for Children and Families and The Administration on Aging in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study (NEAIS); Final Report. 1998. Available at: http://www.aoa.gov/eldfam/Elder_Rights/Elder_Abuse/AbuseReport_full.pdf. Accessed July 2002.
19. Pillemer K, Suitor J. Elder abuse. In: Van Hasselt VB, Morrison RL, Bellack AS, Hersen M, eds. (1988). Handbook of Family Violence. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1988:247-70.
20. Elder abuse and neglect. Council on Scientific Affairs. JAMA 1987;257(7):966-71.
21. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study. Am J Prev Med 1998;14(4):245-58.
22. Anda RF, Chapman DP, Felitti VJ, et al. Adverse childhood experiences and risk of paternity in teen pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2002;100(1):37-45.
23. Dube SR, Anda RF, Felitti VJ, Chapman DP, Williamson DF, Giles WH. Childhood abuse, household dysfunction, and the risk of attempted suicide throughout the life span: findings from the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study. JAMA 2001;286(24):3089-96.
24. Diaz A, Simantov E, Rickert VI. Effect of abuse on health: results of a national survey. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156(8):811-7.
25. Osofsky JD, Wewers S, Hann DM, Fich AC. Chronic community violence: what is happening to our children? Psychiatry 1993;56:36-45.
26. Shakoor BH, Chalmers D. Co-victimization of African-American children who witness violence: effects on cognitive, emotional and behavioral development. J Natl Med Assoc 1991;83:233-8.
27. Lansford JE, Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE, Crozier J, Kaplow J. A 12-year prospective study of the long-term effects of early child physical maltreatment on psychological, behavioral, and academic problems in adolescence. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156(8):824-30.
28. Campbell JC, Lewandowski LA. Mental and physical health effects of intimate partner violence on women and children. Psychiatr Clin North Am 1997;20(2):353-74.
29. Campbell DW, Sharps PW, Gary FA, Campbell JC, Lopez LM. Intimate partner violence in African American women. Online J Issues in Nurs 2002;7(1):5.
30. Coker AL, Smith PH, Thompson MP, McKeown RE, Bethea L, Davis KE. Social support protects against the negative effects of partner violence on mental health. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002;11(5):465-76.
31. Maxfield M, Widom C. The cycle of violence, revisited 6 years later. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1996;50:390-5.
32. Garbarino J, Kostelny K, Dubrow N. What children can tell us about living in danger. Am Psychol 1991;46:376-83.
33. Durant RH, Pendergrast RA, Cadenhead C. Exposure to violence and victimization and fighting behavior by urban black adolescents. J Adolesc Health 1994;15:311-8.
34. American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines Concerning Child Abuse and Neglect. 1984. Chicago: American Medical Association.
35. American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Diagnostic and Treatment Guidelines on Elder Abuse and Neglect. 1992. Chicago: American Medical Association.
36. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. (JCAHO). Accreditation Manual for Hospitals: Vol 1-Standards. 1992. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations.
37. Cole TB. Is domestic violence screening helpful? JAMA 2000;284(5):551-3.
38. Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ 2002;325(7359):314.
39. Borowsky IW, Ireland M. Parental screening for intimate partner violence by pediatricians and family physicians. Pediatrics 2002;110(3):509-16.
40. Chamberlain L, Perham-Hester KA. Physicians' screening practices for female partner abuse during prenatal visits. Matern Child Health J 2000;4(2):141-48.
41. Chamberlain L, Perham-Hester KA. The impact of perceived barriers on primary care physicians' screening practices for female partner abuse. Women Health 2002;35(2-3):55-69.
42. Glass N, Dearwater S, Campbell J. Intimate partner violence screening and intervention: data from eleven Pennsylvania and California community hospital emergency departments. J Emerg Nurs 2001;27(2):141-9.
43. Rodriguez MA, Sheldon WR, Bauer HM, Perez-Stable EJ. The factors associated with disclosure of intimate partner abuse to clinicians. J Fam Pract 2001;50(4):338-44.
44. Erickson MJ, Hill TD, Siegel RM. Barriers to domestic violence screening in the pediatric setting. Pediatrics 2001;108(1):98-102.
45. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2nd ed. 1996. Washington, DC: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion.
46. Nelson H, Nygren P, Klein J. Screening children for family violence: A review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Fam Med 2004. In Press.
47. Wathen N, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: a scientific review. JAMA 2003;289:589-600.
48. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 2001;20(3S):21-35.
49. Pan HS, Ehrensaft MK, Heyman RE, O'Leary KD, Schwartz R. Evaluating domestic partner abuse in a family practice clinic. Fam Med 1997;29(7):492-5.
50. McFarlane J, Christoffel K, Bateman L, Miller V, Bullock L. Assessing for abuse: self-report versus nurse interview. Public Health Nurs 1991;8(4):245-50.
51. Canterino JC, VanHorn LG, Harrigan JT, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM. Domestic abuse in pregnancy: a comparison of a self-completed domestic abuse questionnaire with a directed interview. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1049-51.
52. Norton LB, Peipert JF, Zierler S, Lima B, Hume L. Battering in pregnancy: an assessment of two screening methods. Obstet Gynecol 1995;85(3):321-5.
53. Feldhaus KM, Koziol-McLain J, Amsbury HL, Norton IM, Lowenstein SR, Abbott JT. Accuracy of 3 brief screening questions for detecting partner violence in the emergency department. JAMA 1997;277(17):1357-61.
54. Sherin KM, Sinacore JM, Li XQ, Zitter RE, Shakil A. HITS: a short domestic violence screening tool for use in a family practice setting. Fam Med 1998;30(7):508-12.
55. Morrison LJ, Allan R, Grunfeld A. Improving the emergency department detection rate of domestic violence using direct questioning. J Emerg Med 2000;19(2):117-24.
56. Coker AL, Pope BO, Smith PH, Sanderson M, Hussey JR. Assessment of clinical partner violence screening tools. J Am Med Womens Assoc 2001;56(1):19-23.
57. Brown JB, Lent B, Schmidt G, Sas G. Application of the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and WAST-short in the family practice setting. J Fam Pract 2000;49(10):896-903.
58. Furbee PM, Sikora R, Williams JM, Derk SJ. Comparison of domestic violence screening methods: a pilot study. Ann Emerg Med 1998;31(4):495-501.
59. Reis M, Nahmiash D. Validation of the Indicators of Abuse (IOA) screen. Gerontologist 1998;38(4):471-80.
60. Neale AV, Hwalek MA, Scott RO, Sengstock MC, Stahl C. Validation of the Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test. J Appl Gerontol 1991;10(4):406-18.
61. Reis M, Nahmiash D. Validation of the Caregiver Abuse Screen (CASE). Can J Aging 1995;14(2):45-60.
62. McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K, Bullock L. Assessing for abuse during pregnancy. Severity and frequency of injuries and associated entry into prenatal care. JAMA 1992;267(23):3176-8.
63. Smith M, Martin F. Domestic violence: recognition, intervention, and prevention. Medsurg Nurs 1995;4(1):21-5.
64. McFarlane J, Soeken K, Wiist W. An evaluation of interventions to decrease intimate partner violence to pregnant women. Public Health Nurs 2000;17(6):443-51.
65. Parker B, McFarlane J, Soeken K, Silva C, Reel S. Testing an intervention to prevent further abuse to pregnant women. Res Nurs Health 1999;22(1):59-66.
66. Moody LE, Voss A, Lengacher CA. Assessing abuse among the elderly living in public housing. J Nurs Meas 2000;8(1):61-70.
67. Campbell J, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health 2003;93(7):1089-97.
68. Webster J, Stratigos SM, Grimes KM. Women's responses to screening for domestic violence in a health-care setting. Midwifery 2001;17(4):289-94.
69. Stenson K, Saarinen H, Heimer G, Sidenvall B. Women's attitudes to being asked about exposure to violence. Midwifery 2001;17(1):2-10.
70. Dowd MD, Kennedy C, Knapp JF, Stallbaumer-Rouyer J. Mothers' and health care providers' perspectives on screening for intimate partner violence in a pediatric emergency department. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2002;156(8):794-9.
71. Sachs CJ, Koziol-McLain J, Glass N, Webster D, Campbell J. A population-based survey assessing support for mandatory domestic violence reporting by health care personnel. Women Health 2002;35(2-3):121-33.
72. Gielen AC, McDonnell KA, Burke JG, O'Campo P. Women's lives after an HIV-positive diagnosis: disclosure and violence. Matern Child Health J 2000;4(2):111-20.
73. Voelker R. Elder abuse and neglect a new research topic. JAMA 2002;288(18):2254-6.
74. Fogarty CT, Brown JB. Screening for abuse in Spanish-speaking women. J Am Board Fam Prac 2002;15(2):101-11.
75. Brewster AL, Milner JS, Mollerstrom WW, Saha BT, Harris N. Evaluation of spouse abuse treatment: description and evaluation of the Air Force Family Advocacy Programs for spouse physical abuse. Mil Med 2002;167(6):464-9.
76. Wolfe DA, Wekerle C. Treatment strategies for child physical abuse and neglect: A critical progress report. Clin Psychol Rev 1993;13:473-500.
77. Moore ML, Zaccaro D, Parsons LH. Attitudes and practices of registered nurses toward women who have experienced abuse/domestic violence. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 1998;27(2):175-82.
78. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (AHRQ). Evaluating Domestic Violence Programs. September 2002. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/research/domesticviol/. Accessed September 2002.

Author Affiliations

[a] Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
[b] Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR.
[c] Medical Service, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Portland, OR.
[d] Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

This document is in the public domain within the United States.

Requests for linking or to incorporate content in electronic resources should be sent via the USPSTF contact form.

Source: Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J. Screening Women and Elderly Adults for Family and Intimate Partner Violence: A Review of the Evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2004;140(5)387-96.

This study was conducted by the Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Contract #290-97–0018, Task Order Number 2, Rockville, MD. Dr. McInerney was supported by the Veterans Affairs Special Fellowship in Health Issues of Women Veterans.

Key Questions
Arrow 1: Does screening for family and intimate partner violence reduce harm and premature death and disability?
Arrow 2: How well does screening identify current harm or risk for harm from family and intimate partner violence?
Arrow 3: What are the adverse effects of screening?
Arrow 4: How well do interventions reduce harm from family and intimate partner violence?
Arrow 5: What are the adverse effects of intervention?
*Including physical trauma (fractures, dislocations, brain injury, etc.); unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases; mental trauma; social isolation and its repercussions, such as depression, anxiety, nightmares, among others.

Notes: AAS, Abuse Assessment Screen; ARI, Abuse Risk Inventory; CTS, Conflict Tactics Screen; DAS, Danger Assessment Screen; HITS, Hurt, Insulted, Threatened, and Screamed at; IPV, Intimate Partner Violence; ISA, Index of Spouse Abuse; ISA-P, Index of Spouse Abuse-Physical Scale; NR, not reported; OAS, Ongoing Abuse Screen; PVS, Partner Violence Screen; WAST, Women Abuse Screening Tool; WEB, Women's Experience with Battering Scale.

Notes: AAS, Abuse Assessment Screen; ISA, Index of Spouse Abuse; NR, not reported; SVAWS, Severity of Violence Against Women Scale.

Notes: APS, Adult Protective Services; CASE, Caregiver Abuse Screen; HSEAST, Hwalek-Sengstock Elder Abuse Screening Test; IOA, Indicator of Abuse; NR, not reported.

Intimate Partner Violence Screening Instruments

Databases: MEDLINE® (1966-2002), PsycINFO (1984-2002), Health & Psychosocial Instruments (1985-2002)

1 spouse abuse/or domestic violence.mp. or battered woman.mp. [mp = title, abstract, heading word, table of contents, key phrase identifiers]
2 (screening or identity or early detection).mp.
3 questionnaires.mp.
4 physicians, family/ or "family physicians".mp.
5 primary health care/ or "primary care".mp.
6 family practice/or "family practice".mp.
7 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6
8 1 or 7
9 limit 8 to (human and English)

Intimate Partner Violence Interventions

Databases: MEDLINE® (1966-2002), CINAHL(1982-2002)

1 spouse abuse/ or domestic violence.mp. or battered women.mp.
2 ((intimate partner or life partner or partner or wife or husband) and (violence or abuse)).mp.
3 1 or 2
4 internal medicine.mp.
5 Physicians, Family/ or family physicians.mp.
6 exp Primary Health Care/ or primary care.mp.
7 Family Practice/ or family practice.mp.
8 EMERGENCIES/ or emergency.mp.
9 exp emergency service, hospital/ or emergency department$.mp.
10 OBSTETRICS/ or "OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY DEPARTMENT, HOSPITAL"/ or obstetrics.mp.
11 4 or 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 or 9 or 10
12 3 and 11
13 pc.fs. or prevent$.mp. or intervention.mp. or assessment.mp.
14 exp counseling/ or counsel$.mp
15 (patient education or questionnaire$).mp.
16 questionnaires/
17 interviews/ or interview$.mp.
18 exp clinical trials/ or clinical trial$.mp.
19 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or 17 or 18
20 12 and 19
21 limit 20 to (human and English language)
22 from 21 keep 1-151

Database: PsycINFO (1984-2002)

1 exp Partner Abuse/ or spouse abuse.mp.
2 exp Battered Females/
3 exp Family Violence/ or exp Victimization/ or exp Emotional Abuse/ or battered women.mp.
4 3 and (women or females).mp.
5 ((intimate partner$ or life partner$ or partner or wife or husband) and (violence or abuse)).mp.
6 1 or 2 or 4 or 5
7 internal medicine.mp.
8 exp Family Physicians/ or family physicians.mp.
9 exp Primary Health Care/ or primary care.mp.
10 exp Family Physicians/ or family practice.mp.
11 exp emergency services/ or emergenc$.mp.
12 exp OBSTETRICS/ or obstetrics.mp.
13 exp GYNECOLOGY/ or gynecology.mp.
14 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
15 6 and 14
16 (prevent$ or intervention or assessment).mp.
17 exp counseling/ or counsel$.mp.
18 exp Client Education/ or patient education.mp.
19 questionnaires/ or questionnaire$.mp.
20 exp interviews/ or interview$.mp.
21 clinical trial$.mp.
22 exp at risk populations/ or cohort study$.mp.

Elder Abuse Screening Instruments

Databases: MEDLINE® (1966-2002), PsycINFO (1984-2002), Health & Psychosocial Instruments (1985-2002)

1 elder abuse.mp.
2 (domestic violence or family violence).mp.
3 (elder$ or aged or old or ageing).mp.
4 (vulnerable or disabled or handicapped).mp.
5 (2 or 4) and 3
6 1 or 5
7 mass screening/ or screening.mp.
8 questionnaires/ or questionnaire$.tw.
9 interview/ or interview$.tw.
10 7 or 8 or 9
11 6 and 10
12 limit 11 to (human and English language)
13 from 12 keep 1-1009

Database: AARP Ageline (1978-2002)

1 elder abuse.mp.
2 ((family or domestic) and (abuse or violence)).mp.
3 (elder$ or old or ageing or aging or aged or geriatric).mp.
4 2 and 3
5 1 or 4
6 (internal medicine or geriatrics or family physicians or family practice).mp.
7 (primary care or emergency or emergency services).mp.

Elder Abuse Interventions

Databases: MEDLINE (1966-2002), CINAHL (1982-2002)

1 elder abuse.mp.
2 (domestic violence or family violence).mp.
3 (elder$ or aged or old or ageing).mp.
4 2 and 3
5 (vulnerable or disabled or handicapped).mp.
6 1 or 4 or 5
7 GERIATRICS/ or geriatrics.mp.
8 Internal Medicine/ or internal medicine.mp.
9 Physicians, Family/ or family physicians.mp.
10 exp Primary Health Care/ or primary care.mp.
11 Family Practice/ or family practice.mp.
12 EMERGENCIES/ or emergency.mp.
13 exp Emergency Service, Hospital/ or emergency department.mp.
14 7 or 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
15 6 and 14
16 limit 15 to (human and English language)
17 pc.fs. or prevent$.mp. or intervention.mp. or assessment.mp.
18 exp COUNSELING/ or counseling.mp.
19 patient education.mp.
20 questionnaires.mp.
21 QUESTIONNAIRES/
22 INTERVIEWS/ or interviews.mp.
23 exp clinical trials/ or clinical trial$.mp.
24 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23
25 16 and 24
26 from 25 keep 1-129

Database: PsycINFO (1984-2002)

1 elder abuse.mp.
2 (domestic violence or family violence).mp.
3 (elder$ or aged or aging or ageing or old or geriatric).mp.
4 (vulnerable or disabled or handicapped).mp.
5 3 or 4
6 2 and 5
7 1 or 6
8 exp GERIATRICS/ or geriatrics.mp.
9 internal medicine.mp. or exp Physicians/
10 exp Family Physicians/ or family physicians.mp.
11 exp Primary Health Care/ or primary care.mp.
12 exp Family Physicians/ or exp General Practitioners/ or family practice.mp.
13 exp emergency services/ or emergency$.mp.
14 8 or 9 or 10 or 11 or 12 or 13
15 7 and 14
16 limit 15 to (human and English language)
17 prevention/ or prevent$.mp. or intervention.mp. or assessment.mp.
18 exp counseling/ or counsel$.mp. or assess$.mp.
19 exp Client Education/ or patient education.mp.
20 questionnaires/ or questionnaire$.mp.
21 exp interviews/ or interview$.mp.
22 clinical trial$.mp.
23 exp at risk populations/ or exp cohort analysis/ or cohort stud$.mp.
24 17 or 18 or 19 or 20 or 21 or 22 or 23
25 16 and 24
26 from 25 keep 1-36

Database: AARP Ageline (1978-2002)

1 elder abuse.mp.
2 ((family or domestic) and (abuse or violence)).mp.
3 (elder$ or old or ageing or aging or aged or geriatric).mp.
4 2 and 3
5 1 or 4
6 (internal medicine or geriatrics or family physicians or family practice).mp.
7 (primary care or emergency or emergency services).mp.
8 6 or 7
9 5 and 8
10 from 9 keep 1-75

Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Criteria:

• Screening test relevant, available for primary care, adequately described.
• Study uses a credible reference standard, performed regardless of test results.
• Reference standard interpreted independently of screening test.
• Handles indeterminate results in a reasonable manner.
• Spectrum of patients included in study.
• Adequate sample size.
• Administration of reliable screening test.

Definition of ratings based on above criteria:

Good: Evaluates relevant, available screening test; uses a credible reference standard; interprets reference standard independently of screening test; reliability of test assessed; has few or handles indeterminate results in a reasonable manner; includes large number (> 100) broad-spectrum patients with and without disease.

Fair: Evaluates relevant available screening test; uses reasonable although not the best standard; interprets reference standard independent of screening test; moderate sample size (50-100 patients) and a "medium" spectrum of patients.

Poor: Has important limitations such as: uses inappropriate reference standard; screening test improperly administered; biased ascertainment of reference standard; small sample size of narrow selected spectrum of patients.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Cohort Studies

Criteria:

• Initial assembly of comparable groups: RCTs—adequate randomization, including concealment and whether potential confounders were distributed equally among groups; cohort studies—consideration of potential confounders with either restriction or measurement for adjustment in the analysis; consideration of inception cohorts.
• Maintenance of comparable groups (includes attrition, crossovers, adherence, contamination).
• Important differential loss to followup or overall high loss to followup.
• Measurements: equal, reliable, and valid (includes masking of outcome assessment).
• Clear definition of interventions.
• Important outcomes considered.
• Analysis: adjustment for potential confounders for cohort studies, or intention-to-treat analysis for RCTs.

Definition of ratings based on above criteria:

Good: Meets all criteria: comparable groups are assembled initially and maintained throughout the study (followup ≥ 80%); reliable and valid measurement instruments are used and applied equally to the groups; interventions are spelled out clearly; important outcomes are considered; and appropriate attention to confounders in analysis.

Fair: Studies will be graded "fair" if any or all of the following problems occur, without the important limitations noted in the "poor" category below: generally comparable groups are assembled initially, but some question remains whether some (although not major) differences occurred in followup; measurement instruments are acceptable (although not the best) and generally applied equally; some but not all important outcomes are considered; and some but not all potential confounders are accounted for.

Poor: Studies will be graded "poor" if any of the following major limitations exist: groups assembled initially are not close to being comparable or are not maintained throughout the study; unreliable or invalid measurement instruments are used or not applied at all equally among groups (including not masking outcome assessment); and key confounders are given little or no attention.

Case Control Studies

Criteria:

• Accurate ascertainment of cases.
• Nonbiased selection of cases/controls with exclusion criteria applied equally to both.
• Adequate response rate.
• Diagnostic testing procedures applied equally to each group.
• Measurement of exposure accurate and applied equally to each group.
• Appropriate attention to potential confounding variable.

Definition of ratings based on above criteria:

Good: Appropriate ascertainment of cases and nonbiased selection of case and control participants; exclusion criteria applied equally to cases and controls; response rate equal to or greater than 80%; diagnostic procedures and measurements accurate and applied equally to cases and controls; and appropriate attention to confounding variables.

Fair: Recent, relevant, without major apparent selection or diagnostic work-up bias, but with response rate less than 80% or attention to some but not all important confounding variables.

Poor: Major selection or diagnostic work-up biases, response rates less than 50%, or inattention to confounding variables.

Intimate Partner Violence Against Women

Elder Abuse and Neglect