Domestic/Family Violence Death Reviews
Domestic/Family Violence Death Reviews
复制标题
家庭暴力死亡评论
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Carolyn Walsh
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
L. Bugeja;M. Dawson;Sara;Carolyn Walsh
自1990年以来，一些高收入国家建立了家庭暴力死亡审查机制，作为减少家庭暴力的预防性干预措施的信息来源。D/FVDR在结构、治理、病例识别流程和纳入标准、审查措施和输出方面有所不同。在美国以外，尚未探讨国家之间和国家内部的异质性程度。这项研究包括对D/FVDR及其核心要素的国际比较，以告知其他发达国家以及可能的低收入和中等收入国家（暴力是主要死亡原因）建立D/FVDR。这一审查也是今后任何D/FVDR评价的必要基础。该审查确定了71个在过去二十年中建立了D/FVDR的司法管辖区，其中25个符合纳入标准。审查的所有D/FVDR都将减少死亡作为审查进程的目标;然而，没有一份报告实际减少。D/FVDRs审查的重点是亲密伴侣杀人;然而，最近确定的D/FVDRs包括其他家庭关系。几乎三分之一的家庭暴力和家庭暴力受害者报告审查了家庭/家庭系统因审查进程提出的建议而发生的变化。D/FVDR虽然在许多方面相似，但在一些重要方面存在沿着差异，因此很难为考虑建立此类举措的法域确定最佳做法。为了分享知识，应在国家和国际两级扩大现有网络，以包括可能正在考虑这一举措的管辖区。
Domestic/Family Violence Death Reviews (D/FVDRs) have been established in a number of high-income countries since 1990 as a mechanism to inform prevention-focused interventions to reduce domestic/family violence. D/FVDRs differ in their structure, governance, case identification processes and inclusion criteria, review measures, and outputs. Outside of the United States, the extent of heterogeneity across and within countries has not been explored. This study comprised an international comparison of D/FVDRs and their core elements to inform the establishment of D/FVDRs in other developed countries, and potentially low- and middle-income countries where violence is a leading cause of death. Such a review is also a necessary foundation for any future evaluation D/FVDRs. The review identified 71 jurisdictions where a D/FVDRs had been established in the past two decades, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. All D/FVDRs examined stated a reduction in deaths as a goal of the review process; however, none reported an actual reduction. The focus of the D/FVDRs examined was on intimate partner homicides; however, more recently established D/FVDRs include other familial relationships. Almost one third of the D/FVDRs examined reported changes to the domestic/family system that occurred as a result of recommendations made from the review process. While similar in many ways, D/FVDRs differ along a number of important dimensions that make it difficult to identify best practices for jurisdictions considering the establishment of such an initiative. To share knowledge, existing networks should be expanded nationally and internationally to include jurisdictions that may be considering this initiative.