Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJonassen, Julie A.
dc.contributor.authorMazor, Kathleen M.
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:22.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:28:02Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:28:02Z
dc.date.issued2003-10-15
dc.date.submitted2011-12-09
dc.identifier.citationAcad Med. 2003 Oct;78(10 Suppl):S20-3.
dc.identifier.issn1040-2446 (Linking)
dc.identifier.pmid14557085
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/36925
dc.description.abstractPURPOSE: Effective assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) demands that everyone at risk be screened. To identify potential barriers, paper-and-pencil case scenarios identified possible practitioner and patient attributes that influence IPV screening. METHOD: First-year residents responded to one of four short written scenarios describing a divorced female patient with nonlocalized abdominal pain; variables were patient's age and abdominal bruising. Residents rated their likelihood of screening for IPV and seven other screening tasks and self-assessed their competence in performing each task. Regression analyses assessed the influence of resident and patient characteristics on screening likelihood. RESULTS: Patient bruising, younger patient age, and resident self-assessed competence best predicted IPV screening. Men were less likely than women to screen for IPV. CONCLUSIONS: Although most physicians receive training on IPV in medical school, barriers to IPV screening still exist. Identifying obstacles to IPV risk-assessment is an essential prerequisite for improving educational programs that promote routine IPV screening.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=14557085&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a>
dc.relation.urlhttp://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&AN=00001888-200310001-00007&LSLINK=80&D=ovft
dc.subjectAge Factors
dc.subjectClinical Competence
dc.subjectContusions
dc.subjectFemale
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectInternship and Residency
dc.subjectLikelihood Functions
dc.subjectLinear Models
dc.subjectMale
dc.subjectMass Screening
dc.subjectPhysician's Practice Patterns
dc.subjectPhysicians
dc.subjectQuestionnaires
dc.subjectRegression Analysis
dc.subjectSex Factors
dc.subjectSpouse Abuse
dc.subjectUnited States
dc.subjectHealth Services Research
dc.subjectPrimary Care
dc.titleIdentification of physician and patient attributes that influence the likelihood of screening for intimate partner violence
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleAcademic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges
dc.source.volume78
dc.source.issue10 Suppl
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/meyers_pp/307
dc.identifier.contextkey2396668
html.description.abstract<p>PURPOSE: Effective assessment of intimate partner violence (IPV) demands that everyone at risk be screened. To identify potential barriers, paper-and-pencil case scenarios identified possible practitioner and patient attributes that influence IPV screening.</p> <p>METHOD: First-year residents responded to one of four short written scenarios describing a divorced female patient with nonlocalized abdominal pain; variables were patient's age and abdominal bruising. Residents rated their likelihood of screening for IPV and seven other screening tasks and self-assessed their competence in performing each task. Regression analyses assessed the influence of resident and patient characteristics on screening likelihood.</p> <p>RESULTS: Patient bruising, younger patient age, and resident self-assessed competence best predicted IPV screening. Men were less likely than women to screen for IPV.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: Although most physicians receive training on IPV in medical school, barriers to IPV screening still exist. Identifying obstacles to IPV risk-assessment is an essential prerequisite for improving educational programs that promote routine IPV screening.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathmeyers_pp/307
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Physiology
dc.contributor.departmentMeyers Primary Care Institute
dc.source.pagesS20-3


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record