Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

StudyStudy typePatient populationIntervention (outcome)Comparison (outcome)OutcomesSummary
Sixsmith et al35Prospective cohortER patients (women)1500 (15)
1500 (5)
IPV identification through direct screening via telephone follow-upTelephone surveys to ED patients ‘at risk’ (142/1500, 9%) 3 days postdischarge. Five victims identified before discharge, 10 on phone call.
McLeer, Anwar R39Prospective cohortTrauma patients (women)412 (124)
359 (20)
Identification of IPV through trauma nurse direct screening protocolImplementation of a nursing IPV screening protocol. Results compared with the incidence of IPV on retrospective review. IPV identification increased 5.6% to 30%.
Morrison etal36Prospective cohortED patients (women)302 (43)
1000 (4)
Identification of IPV through ED physician direct screening protocolCompared IPV identification by direct questioning versus historical cohort. Prevalence of IPV with screening was higher than without (14.2% vs 0.4%, p<0.001); 10/11 who screened positive for acute IPV accepted resources for help.
Halpern et al38Prospective cohortED patients (women)145 (17) 11.5%141 (7) 5%Identification of IPV through formal ED screening protocolCompared IPV identification using injury pattern and PVS with informal triage SOP. More victims were identified through formal screening protocol (17/145 vs 7/141, p<0.03).
Rhodes et al33Case-controlED patients (men and women)248 (83) 33.5%222 (1) 0.4%Identification of IPV through ED computer-based health-risk assessmentComputer-based health-risk assessment intervention screened patients for IPV (n=248). Compared with control (no screening) (n=222); 83 victims IDed through computer screen. IPV was recorded for one patient in the control group.
Trautman et al37Prospective cohortED patients (women)411(80) 19.5%594 (7) 1.2%Identification of IPV through ED computer-based health-risk assessmentComparison between CHS (n=411) vs ‘usual care’ (n=594); 80 (19.5%) victims by CHS and 7 (1.2%) through usual care (95% CI 13.9% to 21.7%). Of the 87 victims, 46 (53%) were referred to social work. IPV victims identified via CHS were more likely to be referred to social work (10.5% vs 0.5%; 95% CI 6.7% to 12.7%).
Fulfer et al34Prospective cohortER patients (women), IPV victimsPart 1:
80 (10)
Part 2:
435 (27)
Part 1:
(IPV victims)
87 (74)
Part 2:
(direct screen)
435 (50)
Identification of IPV victims through indirect questionsTwo-part study:
  1. Development of indirect screening tool (18 questions administered to 87 IPV and 80 non-IPV victims. Five questions, ‘SAFE-T Questionnaire’, were strongly associated with IPV victimization); 85% sensitive, 87% specific in known IPV victims.

  2. Validation in ED (435 ED patients administered SAFE-T Questionnaire, followed by direct question about IPV). Those who screened positive for IPV on direct question scored significantly lower on the SAFE-T Questionnaire; 54% sensitive, 81% specific in ED patients.

  • CHS, computer health screen; ED, emergency department; ER, emergency room; IPV, intimate partner violence; PVS, Partner Violence; SOP, standard operating procedure.