Intimate partner violence screening tools: a systematic review.
Intimate partner violence screening tools: a systematic review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.01.024
复制
发表时间：
2009-05
影响因子：
5.5
通讯作者：
Bair-Merritt, Megan H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Rabin, Rebecca F.;Jennings, Jacky M.;Campbell, Jacquelyn C.;Bair-Merritt, Megan H.
亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)筛查仍然存在争议。主要的医疗组织强制进行筛查，而美国预防服务工作组(USPSTF)警告说，没有足够的证据建议或反对筛查。有效的IPV筛查计划必须包括具有良好心理测量学特性的筛查工具。对在医疗保健环境中测试的IPV筛查工具进行了系统的综述，提供了对现有心理测量数据的讨论和研究质量的评估。从2007年底到2008年，从开始到2007年12月，对三个已发表的文献数据库进行了搜索；通过书目搜索和专家咨询扩大了搜索范围。符合条件的研究包括描述在医疗保健环境中对IPV筛查工具进行心理测量测试的英文出版物。采用USPSTF诊断性研究标准评价研究质量。在210项可能符合条件的研究中，33项符合纳入标准。研究最多的工具是伤害、侮辱、威胁和尖叫(HITS，敏感度30%-100%，特异度86%-99%)；女性虐待筛查工具(WAST，敏感度47%，特异度96%)；伴侣暴力筛查(PVS，敏感度35%-71%，特异度80%-94%)；虐待评估筛查(AAS，敏感度93%-94%，特异度55%-99%)。此外，还评估了内部信度(HITS，WAST)、重测信度(AAS)、并发效度(HITS，WAST)、判别效度(WAST)和预测效度(PVS)。总体学习质量为一般到良好。没有一种单一的IPV筛查工具具有良好的心理测量学特性。即使是最常见的工具，也只在少数研究中进行了评估。筛查工具内部和之间的敏感度和特异度差别很大。迫切需要进一步的测试和验证。
Intimate partner violence (IPV) screening remains controversial. Major medical organizations mandate screening, whereas the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) cautions that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against screening. An effective IPV screening program must include a screening tool with sound psychometric properties. A systematic review was conducted to summarize IPV screening tools tested in healthcare settings, providing a discussion of existing psychometric data and an assessment of study quality. From the end of 2007 through 2008, three published literature databases were searched from their start through December 2007; this search was augmented with a bibliography search and expert consultation. Eligible studies included English-language publications describing the psychometric testing of an IPV screening tool in a healthcare setting. Study quality was judged using USPSTF criteria for diagnostic studies. Of 210 potentially eligible studies, 33 met inclusion criteria. The most studied tools were the Hurt, Insult, Threaten, and Scream (HITS, sensitivity 30%–100%, specificity 86%–99%); the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST, sensitivity 47%, specificity 96%); the Partner Violence Screen (PVS, sensitivity 35%–71%, specificity 80%–94%); and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS, sensitivity 93%–94%, specificity 55%–99%). Internal reliability (HITS, WAST); test–retest reliability (AAS); concurrent validity (HITS, WAST); discriminant validity (WAST); and predictive validity (PVS) were also assessed. Overall study quality was fair to good. No single IPV screening tool had well-established psychometric properties. Even the most common tools were evaluated in only a small number of studies. Sensitivities and specificities varied widely within and between screening tools. Further testing and validation are critically needed.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
Bonomi, Amy E.;Anderson, Melissa L.;Thompson, Robert S.
通讯作者：
Thompson, Robert S.
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
Anglin, D;Sachs, C
通讯作者：
Sachs, C
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Feldhaus, KM;KoziolMcLain, J;Abott, JT
通讯作者：
Abott, JT
影响因子：
6.2
作者：
Heron, SL;Thompson, MP;Kaslow, NJ
通讯作者：
Kaslow, NJ
影响因子：
8
作者：
Dubowitz, Howard;Prescott, Leslie;Kim, Jeongeun
通讯作者：
Kim, Jeongeun