PURPOSE: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious, under-reported public health problem in the United States. Pilot studies suggested that injury location, that is, head, neck, or face, was a sensitive but nonspecific marker for IPV-related injuries. This study's goal was to determine whether adding a second element to the diagnostic protocol-response to an IPV-screening questionnaire-improved the specificity of the protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used a cross-sectional study design and a sample composed of women presenting to the emergency department for evaluation and management of injuries of non-verifiable etiology. The predictor study variables were injury location (head, neck, or face vs other), responses to a verbal questionnaire (Partner Violence Screen or Woman Abuse Screening Tool), and the combination of both elements. By combining both elements, the probability for IPV-related injury was classified as high or low. The outcome variable was self-report of injury etiology (IPV or other etiology). Appropriate univariate and bivariate statistics were computed, including estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and relative risk. RESULTS: The sample was composed of 300 women with a mean age of 36.5 years. The frequency of self-reported IPV-related injury was 32.3%. The sensitivities and specificities for injury location and the questionnaires combined ranged from 86.5% to 91.8% and 93.1% to 96.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that combining information regarding injury location and the results of a screening questionnaire was a better predictor of a woman's likelihood to report IPV-related injuries than either modality alone.
Language: en
", language="en", issn="0278-2391", doi="10.1016/j.joms.2010.02.010", url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2010.02.010" }