250 Aim: To compare in person versus Ninety-one (36%) patients disclosed IPV either Cohort III-2 () women; 52 computerized screening for intimate via computer or in person. Of those who providers partner violence (IPV) in a hospital-based disclosed IPV, 60 (66%) disclosed via both prenatal clinic and explore women's methods, but 31 (34%) disclosed IPV via only assessment of the screening methods. one of the two methods. Twenty-three women returned for interviews. They Setting: United States recommended using both types together. Population: Women in hospital-based While computerized screening was felt to be antenatal care non-judgmental and more anonymous, in Methods: We compared patient IPV person screening allowed for tailored disclosures on a computerized questioning and more emotional connection questionnaire to audio-taped first obstetric with the provider. opportunity for interpersonal visits with an obstetric care provider and rapport. performed semi-structured interviews with patient participants who reported experiencing IPV.
() Cohort III-2 250 women; 52 providers Aim: 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. Setting: United States Population: Women in hospital-based antenatal care 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. 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. opportunity for interpersonal rapport.
Family%20violence%20evaluation%20report%2016May17.docx