Table 1

Characteristics of included studies

StudyStudy typePatient populationIntervention (outcome)Comparison (outcome)OutcomesSummary
Sixsmith et al35Prospective cohortER patients (women)1500 (15)
1%		1500 (5)
0.33%		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)
30%		359 (20)
5.6%		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)
14.2%		1000 (4)
0.4%		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:
(non-victims)
80 (10)
13%
Part 2:
(SAFE-T)
435 (27)
6.2%		Part 1:
(IPV victims)
87 (74)
85%
Part 2:
(direct screen)
435 (50)
11.6%		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.