Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13024
Record ID: e98ed775-14fa-46f8-8011-ffbb11e167c1
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRutherford, Alisonen
dc.contributor.authorHerring, Sigriden
dc.contributor.authorKoziol-Mclain, Janeen
dc.contributor.authorSpangaro, Joen
dc.contributor.authorZwi, Anthony Ben
dc.date.accessioned2022-06-30T23:03:46Z-
dc.date.available2022-06-30T23:03:46Z-
dc.date.issued2021en
dc.identifier.urihttps://anrows.intersearch.com.au/anrowsjspui/handle/1/13024-
dc.description.abstractObjective: Routine inquiry has been introduced in many health settings to identify women who are experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV). A range of validated tools exist; however, little attention has been given to how health professionals interpret women’s responses and whether they align with women’s own perceptions about whether they disclosed abuse. Method: This qualitative synthesis was undertaken in eight Australian antenatal clinics over 14 months. We invited women in waiting areas to participate in an anonymous interview about antenatal assessment, to identify those with past year IPV and their recollections of disclose abuse to midwives. Accounts were compared with file review data from antenatal records. Focus groups conducted at each site with midwives explored these findings. Results: Eleven Aboriginal and 32 non-Aboriginal antenatal patients who had experienced abuse were interviewed and files reviewed. IPV disclosures were often not recorded in clinical notes, despite protocols for asking and documenting. Of the 43 women, 30 (70%) reported they had disclosed their abuse in response to screening and 13 (30%) reported they did not disclose. Of the 30 who disclosed, only 16 (53%) antenatal records documented a disclosure. Qualitative analysis of patient interviews and focus group discussions with midwives identified two key themes: (a) women’s responses to screening questions were rarely “yes” or “no” and (b) midwives were often unclear whether women’s responses constituted IPV. Conclusions: Screening tools are needed, which recognize that IPV is not a binary construct and support health professionals to interpret women’s responses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)en
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherEducational Publishing Foundationen
dc.relation.ispartofPsychology of Violenceen
dc.title“It’s not a yes or no question”: Disparities between women’s accounts of disclosing intimate partner violence and patient documentation in antenatal settings: A qualitative synthesisen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.catalogid16820en
dc.subject.keywordnew_recorden
dc.subject.readinglistANROWS Notepad 2021 February 25en
dc.date.entered2021-02-22en
dc.subject.listANROWS Notepad 2021 February 25en
Appears in Collections:Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in ANROWS library are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Google Media

Google ScholarTM

Who's citing