Citation

Chang JC, Dado D, Schussler S, Hawker L, Holland CL, Burke JG, Cluss PA. Patient Educ. Couns. 2012; 88(3): 443-448.

Affiliation

Departments of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences and Medicine, Magee Womens Research Institute, Center for Research in Health Care, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, USA.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.021

PMID

22770815

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.

Language: en