@article{ref1,
title="In person versus computer screening for intimate partner violence among pregnant patients",
journal="Patient education and counseling",
year="2012",
author="Chang, Judy C. and Dado, Diane and Schussler, Sara and Hawker, Lynn and Holland, Cynthia L. and Burke, Jessica G. and Cluss, Patricia A.",
volume="88",
number="3",
pages="443-448",
abstract="OBJECTIVE: To compare in person versus computerized screening for intimate partner violence (IPV) in a hospital-based prenatal clinic and explore women's assessment of the screening methods. METHODS: We compared patient IPV disclosures on a computerized questionnaire to audio-taped first obstetric visits with an obstetric care provider and performed semi-structured interviews with patient participants who reported experiencing IPV. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty patient participants and 52 provider participants were in the study. Ninety-one (36%) patients disclosed IPV either via computer or in person. Of those who disclosed IPV, 60 (66%) disclosed via both methods, but 31 (34%) disclosed IPV via only one of the two methods. Twenty-three women returned for interviews. They recommended using both types together. While computerized screening was felt to be non-judgmental and more anonymous, in person screening allowed for tailored questioning and more emotional connection with the provider. CONCLUSION: Computerized screening allowed disclosure without fear of immediate judgment. In person screening allows more flexibility in wording of questions regarding IPV and opportunity for interpersonal rapport. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Both computerized or self-completed screening and in person screening is recommended. Providers should address IPV using non-judgmental, descriptive language, include assessments for psychological IPV, and repeat screening in person, even if no patient disclosure occurs via computer.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0738-3991",
doi="10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.021",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.021"
}