Longitudinal Examination of Leisure-Time Physical Activity (LTPA), Participation, and Social Inclusion Upon Joining a Community-based LTPA Program for Adults With Physical Disabilities.

OBJECTIVE: First, to examine whether participants reported changes in (1) leisure-time physical activity (LTPA) participation and social inclusion variables and (2) well-being outcomes before and after joining a community-based LTPA program for adults with physical disabilities. Second, to explore the longitudinal relationship between LTPA and the other aforementioned outcomes. DESIGN: A double baseline longitudinal design with measurements at 4-6 weeks (baseline 1) and immediately (baseline 2) before and 2 and 4 months after joining the community-based LTPA program. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (N=43) with a physical disability who reported no cognitive impairment, were new members of the community-based LTPA program, and spoke English or French. INTERVENTIONS: A community-based physical activity program for adults with physical disabilities. Participants were provided an individualized exercise program and accessed the program at designated times during the week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: LTPA (LTPA Questionnaire for People with Spinal Cord Injury), participation (Patient-Perceived Participation in Daily Activities Questionnaire), and social inclusion. Secondary: depression severity, self-esteem, resilience, and life satisfaction. RESULTS: After joining the program, participants reported an increase in total LTPA (meanbaseline2, 177.80±211.32; mean2months, 299.31±298.70; mean4months, 288.14±292.14), moderate-to-vigorous LTPA (meanbaseline2, 83.95±123.95; mean2months, 142.00±198.38; mean4months, 163.23±182.08), and participation in health (meanbaseline2, 6.24±1.16; mean2months, 6.58±1.25; mean4months, 6.97±0.82) and family-related activities (meanbaseline2, 12.18±2.43; mean2months, 12.60±2.30; mean4months, 13.47±2.01). A significant increase (ß=3.46, P<.001) in social inclusion before joining the program was followed by a decrease (ß=-1.09, P<.05) 4 months later. Improvements related to depression severity were noted (ßbaseline1-baseline2=-1.51, P<.05; ßbaseline2-4 months=-0.28, P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results support the role of a community-based LTPA program in increasing LTPA levels and enhancing participation in some activities among adults with physical disabilities.

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional organisations recommend screening all women for IPV rather than asking only women with symptoms (case-finding). Here, we examine the evidence for whether screening benefits women and has no deleterious effects. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of screening for IPV conducted within healthcare settings on identification, referral, re-exposure to violence, and health outcomes for women, and to determine if screening causes any harm. SEARCH METHODS: On 17 February 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, six other databases, and two trial registers. We also searched the reference lists of included articles and the websites of relevant organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of IPV screening where healthcare professionals either directly screened women face-to-face or were informed of the results of screening questionnaires, as compared with usual care (which could include screening that did not involve a healthcare professional). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standardised estimation of the odds ratio (OR). For continuous data, either a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) was calculated. All are presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials that recruited 14,959 women from diverse healthcare settings (antenatal clinics, women's health clinics, emergency departments, primary care) predominantly located in high-income countries and urban settings. The majority of studies minimised selection bias; performance bias was the greatest threat to validity. The overall quality of the body of evidence was low to moderate, mainly due to heterogeneity, risk of bias, and imprecision.We excluded five of 13 studies from the primary analysis as they either did not report identification data, or the way in which they did was not consistent with clinical identification by healthcare providers. In the remaining eight studies (n = 10,074), screening increased clinical identification of victims/survivors (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.87, moderate quality evidence).Subgroup analyses suggested increases in identification in antenatal care (OR 4.53, 95% CI 1.82 to 11.27, two studies, n = 663, moderate quality evidence); maternal health services (OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 4.87, one study, n = 829, moderate quality evidence); and emergency departments (OR 2.72, 95% CI 1.03 to 7.19, three studies, n = 2608, moderate quality evidence); but not in hospital-based primary care (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.94, one study, n = 293, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies (n = 1298) measured referrals to domestic violence support services following clinical identification. We detected no evidence of an effect on referrals (OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.64 to 7.86, low quality evidence).Four of 13 studies (n = 2765) investigated prevalence (excluded from main analysis as rates were not clinically recorded); detection of IPV did not differ between face-to-face screening and computer/written-based assessment (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.36, moderate quality evidence).Only two studies measured women's experience of violence (three to 18 months after screening) and found no evidence that screening decreased IPV.Only one study reported on women's health with no differences observable at 18 months.Although no study reported adverse effects from screening interventions, harm outcomes were only measured immediately afterwards and only one study reported outcomes at three months.There was insufficient evidence on which to judge whether screening increases uptake of specialist services, and no studies included an economic evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence shows that screening increases the identification of women experiencing IPV in healthcare settings. Overall, however, rates were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of IPV in women seeking healthcare. Pregnant women in antenatal settings may be more likely to disclose IPV when screened, however, rigorous research is needed to confirm this. There was no evidence of an effect for other outcomes (referral, re-exposure to violence, health measures, lack of harm arising from screening). Thus, while screening increases identification, there is insufficient evidence to justify screening in healthcare settings. Furthermore, there remains a need for studies comparing universal screening to case-finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing in order to inform IPV identification policies in healthcare settings.

Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner abuse is common worldwide, damaging the short- and long-term physical, mental, and emotional health of survivors and children. Advocacy may contribute to reducing abuse, empowering women to improve their situation by providing informal counselling and support for safety planning and increasing access to different services. Advocacy may be a stand-alone service, accepting referrals from healthcare providers, or part of a multi-component (and possibly multi-agency) intervention provided by service staff or others. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advocacy interventions within or outside healthcare settings in women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. SEARCH METHODS: In April 2015, we searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and 10 other databases. We also searched WHO ICTRP, mRCT, and UK Clinical Research Network (UKCRN), and examined relevant websites and reference lists with forward citation tracking of included studies. For the original review we handsearched six key journals. We also contacted first authors of eligible papers and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse versus no intervention or usual care (if advocacy was minimal and fewer than 20% of women received it). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and undertook data extraction. We contacted authors for missing information needed to calculate statistics for the review and looked for adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 trials involving 2141 participants aged 15 to 65 years, frequently having low socioeconomic status.The studies were quite heterogeneous in terms of methodology, study processes and design, including with regard to the duration of follow-up (postintervention to three years), although this was not associated with differences in effect. The studies also had considerable clinical heterogeneity in relation to staff delivering advocacy; setting (community, shelter, antenatal, healthcare); advocacy intensity (from 30 minutes to 80 hours); and abuse severity. Three trials evaluated advocacy within multi-component interventions. Eleven measured some form of abuse (eight scales), six assessed quality of life (three scales), and six measured depression (three scales). Countries and ethnic groups varied (one or more minority ethnic groups in the USA or UK, and local populations in Hong Kong and Peru). Setting was associated with intensity and duration of advocacy.Risk of bias was high in five studies, moderate in five, and low in three. The quality of evidence (considering multiple factors such as risk of bias, study size, missing data) was moderate to low for brief advocacy and very low for intensive advocacy. Incidence of abuse Physical abuseModerate quality pooled data from two healthcare studies (moderate risk of bias) and one community study (low risk of bias), all with 12-month follow-up data, showed no effect on physical abuse for brief (< 12 hours) advocacy interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.17 to 0.16; n = 558). One antenatal study (low risk of bias) showed an association between brief advocacy and reduced minor physical abuse at one year (mean difference (MD) change - 1.00, 95% CI - 1.82 to - 0.18; n = 110). An antenatal, multi-component study showed a greater likelihood of physical abuse ending (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.75) immediately after advocacy (number needed to treat (NNT) = 8); we cannot exclude impact from other components.Low to very low quality evidence from two intensive advocacy trials (12 hours plus duration) showed reduced severe physical abuse in women leaving a shelter at 24 months (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.77; NNT = 8), but not at 12 or 36 months. Sexual abuseMeta-analysis of two studies (n = 239) showed no effect of advocacy on sexual abuse (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.37 to 0.14), agreeing with the change score (MD - 0.07, 95% CI - 0.30 to 0.16) from a third study and the OR (0.96, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.12) from a fourth antenatal, multi-component study. Emotional abuseOne study in antenatal care, rated at low risk of bias, showed reduced emotional abuse at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD (change score) - 4.24, 95% CI - 6.42 to - 2.06; n = 110). Psychosocial health Quality of lifeMeta-analysis of two studies (high risk of bias) showed intensive advocacy slightly improved overall quality of life of women recruited from shelters (MD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46; n = 343) at 12-month follow-up, with greater improvement in perceived physical quality of life from a primary care study (high risk of bias; MD 4.90, 95% CI 0.98 to 8.82) immediately postintervention. Depression Meta-analysis of two studies in healthcare settings, one at high risk of bias and one at moderate risk, showed that fewer women developed depression (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65; n = 149; NNT = 4) with brief advocacy. One study at high risk of bias reported a slight reduction in depression in pregnant women immediately after the intervention (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.29; n = 103; NNT = 8).There was no evidence that intensive advocacy reduced depression at ≤ 12-month follow-up (MD - 0.14, 95% CI - 0.33 to 0.05; 3 studies; n = 446) or at two years (SMD - 0.12, 95% CI - 0.36 to 0.12; 1 study; n = 265). Adverse effectsTwo women died, one who was murdered by her partner and one who committed suicide. No evidence links either death to study participation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest some benefits from advocacy. However, most studies were underpowered. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity largely precluded pooling of trials. Therefore, there is uncertainty about the magnitude of benefit, the impact of abuse severity, and the setting.Based on the evidence reviewed, intensive advocacy may improve short-term quality of life and reduce physical abuse one to two years after the intervention for women recruited from domestic violence shelters or refuges. Brief advocacy may provide small short-term mental health benefits and reduce abuse, particularly in pregnant women and for less severe abuse.

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner violence (IPV) damages individuals, their children, communities, and the wider economic and social fabric of society. Some governments and professional organisations recommend screening all women for intimate partner violence rather than asking only women with symptoms (case-finding); however, what is the evidence that screening interventions will increase identification, and referral to support agencies, or improve women's subsequent wellbeing and not cause harm? OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings for identification, referral to support agencies and health outcomes for women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases in July 2012: CENTRAL (2012, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1948 to September Week June Week 3 2012), EMBASE (1980 to Week 28 2012), MEDLINE In-Process (3 July 2012), DARE (2012, Issue 2), CINAHL (1937 to current), PsycINFO (1806 to June Week 4 2012), Sociological Abstracts (1952 to current) and ASSIA (1987 to October 2010). In addition we searched the following trials registers: metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) (to July 2012), and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ClinicalTrials.gov, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry and the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register to August 2010. We also searched the reference lists of articles and websites of relevant organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing the effectiveness of IPV screening where healthcare professionals screened women face-to-face or were informed of results of screening questionnaires, compared with usual care ( which included screening for other purposes). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in the trials and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes, we calculated a standardised estimation of the risk ratio (RR) and for continuous data, either a mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD). All are presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 trials that recruited 13,027 women overall. Six of 10 studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias.When data from six comparable studies were combined (n = 3564), screening increased identification of victims/survivors (RR 2.33; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (RR 4.26; 95% CI 1.76 to 10.31).Only three studies measured referrals to support agencies (n = 1400). There is no evidence that screening increases such referrals, as although referral numbers increased in the screened group, actual numbers were very small and crossed the line of no effect (RR 2.67; 95% CI 0.99 to 7.20).Only two studies measured women's experience of violence after screening (one at three months, the other at six, 12 and 18 months after screening) and found no significant reduction of abuse.Only one study measured adverse effects and data from this study suggested that screening may not cause harm. This same study showed a trend towards mental health benefit, but the results did not reach statistical significance.There was insufficient evidence on which to judge whether screening increases take up of specialist services, and no studies included economic evaluation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Screening is likely to increase identification rates but rates of referral to support agencies are low and as yet we know little about the proportions of false measurement (negatives or positives). Screening does not appear to cause harm, but only one study examined this outcome. As there is an absence of evidence of long-term benefit for women, there is insufficient evidence to justify universal screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding (with or without advocacy or therapeutic interventions) for women's long-term wellbeing would better inform future policies in healthcare settings.

Identification and Referral to Improve Safety (IRIS) of women experiencing domestic violence with a primary care training and support programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most clinicians have no training about domestic violence, fail to identify patients experiencing abuse, and are uncertain about management after disclosure. We tested the effectiveness of a programme of training and support in primary health-care practices to increase identification of women experiencing domestic violence and their referral to specialist advocacy services. METHODS: In this cluster randomised controlled trial, we selected general practices in two urban primary care trusts, Hackney (London) and Bristol, UK. Practices in which investigators from this trial were employed or those who did not use electronic records were excluded. Practices were stratified by proportion of female doctors, postgraduate training status, number of patients registered, and percentage of practice population on low incomes. Within every primary care trust area, we randomised practices with a computer-minimisation programme with a random component to intervention or control groups. The intervention programme included practice-based training sessions, a prompt within the medical record to ask about abuse, and a referral pathway to a named domestic violence advocate, who also delivered the training and further consultancy. The primary outcome was recorded referral of patients to domestic violence advocacy services. The prespecified secondary outcome was recorded identification of domestic violence in the electronic medical records of the general practice. Poisson regression analyses accounting for clustering were done for all practices receiving the intervention. Practice staff and research associates were not masked and patients were not aware they were part of a study. This study is registered at Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN74012786. FINDINGS: We randomised 51 (61%) of 84 eligible general practices in Hackney and Bristol. Of these, 24 received a training and support programme, 24 did not receive the programme, and three dropped out before the trial started. 1 year after the second training session, the 24 intervention practices recorded 223 referrals of patients to advocacy and the 24 control practices recorded 12 referrals (adjusted intervention rate ratio 22·1 [95% CI 11·5-42·4]). Intervention practices recorded 641 disclosures of domestic violence and control practices recorded 236 (adjusted intervention rate ratio 3·1 [95% CI 2·2-4·3). No adverse events were recorded. INTERPRETATION: A training and support programme targeted at primary care clinicians and administrative staff improved referral to specialist domestic violence agencies and recorded identification of women experiencing domestic violence. Our findings reduce the uncertainty about the benefit of training and support interventions in primary care settings for domestic violence and show that screening of women patients for domestic violence is not a necessary condition for improved identification and referral to advocacy services. FUNDING: Health Foundation.

Primary care identification and referral to improve safety of women experiencing domestic violence (IRIS): protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence, which may be psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional, is a major public health problem due to the long-term health consequences for women who have experienced it and for their children who witness it. In populations of women attending general practice, the prevalence of physical or sexual abuse in the past year from a partner or ex-partner ranges from 6 to 23%, and lifetime prevalence from 21 to 55%. Domestic violence is particularly important in general practice because women have many contacts with primary care clinicians and because women experiencing abuse identify doctors and nurses as professionals from whom they would like to get support. Yet health professionals rarely ask about domestic violence and have little or no training in how to respond to disclosure of abuse. METHODS/DESIGN: This protocol describes IRIS, a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with the general practice as unit of randomisation. Our trial tests the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a training and support programme targeted at general practice teams. The primary outcome is referral of women to specialist domestic violence agencies. Forty-eight practices in two UK cities (Bristol and London) are randomly allocated, using minimisation, into intervention and control groups. The intervention, based on an adult learning model in an educational outreach framework, has been designed to address barriers to asking women about domestic violence and to encourage appropriate responses to disclosure and referral to specialist domestic violence agencies. Multidisciplinary training sessions are held with clinicians and administrative staff in each of the intervention practices, with periodic feedback of identification and referral data to practice teams. Intervention practices have a prompt to ask about abuse integrated in the electronic medical record system. Other components of the intervention include an IRIS champion in each practice and a direct referral pathway to a named domestic violence advocate. DISCUSSION: This is the first European randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve the health care response to domestic violence. The findings will have the potential to inform training and service provision. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74012786.

Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse.

BACKGROUND: Intimate partner abuse is common in all societies and damages the health of survivors and their children in the short and long term. Advocacy may decrease the impact of this abuse on women's health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advocacy interventions conducted within or outside of health care settings on women who have experienced intimate partner abuse. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched: CENTRAL and DARE (Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2008), MEDLINE (1966 to 31/7/08), EMBASE (1980 to 2008 week 30), and 11 other databases, to end July 2008. We also searched relevant websites, reference lists and forward citation tracking of included studies, and handsearched six key journals. We contacted principal investigators and experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing advocacy interventions for women with experience of intimate partner abuse against usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and undertook data extraction. For binary outcomes we calculated a standardised estimation of the odds ratio (OR) and for continuous data we calculated either a standardised mean difference (SMD) or a weighted mean difference (WMD), both with a 95% confidence interval. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten trials involving 1527 participants. The studies were heterogeneous in respect of: intensity of advocacy, outcome measures and duration of follow-up (immediately post-intervention to three years), permitting meta-analysis for only a minority of outcomes. Intensive advocacy (12 hours or more duration) may help terminate physical abuse in women leaving domestic violence shelters or refuges at 12-24 months follow-up (OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80), but not at up to 12 months follow-up. The evidence indicates that intensive advocacy may improve quality of life at up to 12 months follow-up, but the confidence intervals included zero (WMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.46). Depression did not improve following intensive advocacy at up to 12 months follow-up (WMD -0.05, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.09), nor did psychological distress (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.06). Only two meta-analyses of brief advocacy interventions (less than 12 hours duration) were possible; an increased use of safety behaviours was consistent with the receipt of brief advocacy both at up to 12 months (WMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.06) and at 12-24 months (WMD 0.48, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.92) follow up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence reviewed, it is possible that intensive advocacy for women recruited in domestic violence shelters or refuges reduces physical abuse one to two years after the intervention but we do not know if it has a beneficial effect on their quality of life and mental health. Similarly, there is insufficient evidence to show if less intensive interventions in healthcare settings for women who still live with the perpetrators of violence are effective.

Educational outreach to promote screening for tuberculosis in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is re-emerging as an important health problem in industrialised countries. Uncertainty surrounds the effect of public-health control options. We therefore aimed to assess a programme to promote screening for tuberculosis in a UK primary health care district. METHODS: In a cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomised 50 of 52 (96%) eligible general practices in Hackney, London, UK, to receive an outreach programme that promoted screening for tuberculosis in people registering in primary care, or to continue with usual care. Screening was verbal, and proceeded to tuberculin skin testing, if appropriate. The primary outcome was the proportion of new cases of active tuberculosis identified in primary care. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT00214708. FINDINGS: Between June 1, 2002, and Oct 1, 2004, 44,986 and 48,984 patients registered with intervention and control practices, respectively. In intervention practices 57% (13,478 of 23,573) of people attending a registration health check were screened for tuberculosis compared with 0.4% (84 of 23 051) in control practices. Intervention practices showed increases in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis cases in primary care compared with control practices (66/141 [47%] vs 54/157 [34%], odds ratio (OR) 1.68, 95% CI 1.05-2.68, p=0.03). Intervention practices also had increases in diagnosis of latent tuberculosis (11/59 [19%] vs 5/68 [9%], OR 3.00, 0.98-9.20, p=0.055) and BCG coverage (mean BCG rate 26.8/1000 vs 3.8/1000, intervention rate ratio 9.52, 4.0-22.7, p<0.001). INTERPRETATION: Our educational intervention for promotion of screening for tuberculosis in primary care improved identification of active and latent tuberculosis, and increased BCG coverage. Yield from screening was low, but was augmented by improved case-finding. Screening programmes in primary care should be considered as part of tuberculosis control initiatives in industrialised countries.

Women exposed to intimate partner violence: expectations and experiences when they encounter health care professionals: a meta-analysis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: The appropriate response of health care professionals to intimate partner violence is still a matter of debate. This article reports a meta-analysis of qualitative studies that answers 2 questions: (1) How do women with histories of intimate partner violence perceive the responses of health care professionals? and (2) How do women with histories of intimate partner violence want their health care providers to respond to disclosures of abuse? METHODS: Multiple databases were searched from their start to July 1, 2004. Searches were complemented with citation tracking and contact with researchers. Inclusion criteria included a qualitative design, women 15 years or older with experience of intimate partner violence, and English language. Two reviewers independently applied criteria and extracted data. Findings from the primary studies were combined using a qualitative meta-analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles reporting 25 studies (847 participants) were included. The emerging constructs were largely consistent across studies and did not vary by study quality. We ordered constructs by the temporal structure of consultations with health care professionals: before the abuse is discussed, at disclosure, and the immediate and further responses of the health care professional. Key constructs included a wish from women for responses from health care professionals that were nonjudgmental, nondirective, and individually tailored, with an appreciation of the complexity of partner violence. Repeated inquiry about partner violence was seen as appropriate by women who were at later stages of an abusive relationship. CONCLUSION: Women's perceptions of appropriate and inappropriate responses partly depended on the context of the consultation, their own readiness to address the issue, and the nature of the relationship between the woman and the health care professional.

Service implications from a comparison of the evidence on the effectiveness and a survey of provision in England and Wales of COPD specialist nurse services in the community.

STUDY BACKGROUND: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the fifth leading cause of mortality worldwide and is a burden on healthcare resources. Therefore, implementing the right care model(s) for patients with COPD is a priority. Nurses, particularly those with specialist roles, are often the principal health professionals involved in new service models. NEW SERVICES: for patients in the community with COPD are increasing in many countries. Two main types of initiatives have been evaluated; those designed to transfer acute care out of hospital and into the community, and those offering chronic disease management. The extent and nature of such specialist services in the UK and internationally are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To present the results of the first survey of specialist nurse service provision for patients in the community with COPD in England and Wales. To combine the survey findings with systematic review evidence to explore to what extent provision is supported by evidence of effectiveness. METHODS: A postal survey of respiratory healthcare professionals undertaken concurrently with a review of the evidence of the effectiveness of nurse COPD services (review findings are reported fully elsewhere). RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty four specialist nurse services were identified; 71% involved chronic disease management, of which 47% also provided acute care. Seventeen per cent of services involved acute care only. The review identified evidence to support the provision of acute services but data on chronic disease management services are sparse and there is currently little evidence to support these services. Those interventions that have been evaluated to date differed from many of the services provided. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies a considerable mismatch between existing evidence around effectiveness and services provision for patients with COPD. It clearly highlights the need for greater interaction between what happens in practice and research. This is an issue that has relevance across all healthcare practice, both nationally and internationally.

Effect of an Education Programme for South Asians with Asthma and Their Clinicians: A Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial (OEDIPUS).

BACKGROUND: People with asthma from ethnic minority groups experience significant morbidity. Culturally-specific interventions to reduce asthma morbidity are rare. We tested the hypothesis that a culturally-specific education programme, adapted from promising theory-based interventions developed in the USA, would reduce unscheduled care for South Asians with asthma in the UK. METHODS: A cluster randomised controlled trial, set in two east London boroughs. 105 of 107 eligible general practices were randomised to usual care or the education programme. Participants were south Asians with asthma aged 3 years and older with recent unscheduled care. The programme had two components: the Physician Asthma Care Education (PACE) programme and the Chronic Disease Self Management Programme (CDSMP), targeted at clinicians and patients with asthma respectively. Both were culturally adapted for south Asians with asthma. Specialist nurses, and primary care teams from intervention practices were trained using the PACE programme. South Asian participants attended an outpatient appointment; those registered with intervention practices received self-management training from PACE-trained specialist nurses, a follow-up appointment with PACE-trained primary care practices, and an invitation to attend the CDSMP. Patients from control practices received usual care. Primary outcome was unscheduled care. FINDINGS: 375 south Asians with asthma from 84 general practices took part, 183 registered with intervention practices and 192 with control practices. Primary outcome data were available for 358/375 (95.5%) of participants. The intervention had no effect on time to first unscheduled attendance for asthma (Adjusted Hazard Ratio AHR = 1.19 95% CI 0.92 to 1.53). Time to first review in primary care was reduced (AHR = 2.22, (1.67 to 2.95). Asthma-related quality of life and self-efficacy were improved at 3 months (adjusted mean difference -2.56, (-3.89 to -1.24); 0.44, (0.05 to 0.82) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-component education programme adapted for south Asians with asthma did not reduce unscheduled care but did improve follow-up in primary care, self-efficacy and quality of life. More effective interventions are needed for south Asians with asthma.

Randomised controlled trial of a lay-led self-management programme for Bangladeshi patients with chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: Reducing the impact of chronic disease in minority ethnic groups is an important public health challenge. Lay-led education may overcome cultural and language barriers that limit the effectiveness of professionally-led programmes. We report the first randomised trial of a lay-led self-management programme - the Chronic Disease Self-Management Programme (CDSMP) (Expert Patient Programme) - in a south Asian group. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of a culturally-adapted lay-led self-management programme for Bangladeshi adults with chronic disease. DESIGN OF STUDY: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Tower Hamlets, east London. METHOD: We recruited Bangladeshi adults with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease or arthritis from general practices and randomised them to the CDSMP or waiting-list control. Self-efficacy (primary outcome), self-management behaviour, communication with clinician, depression scores, and healthcare use were assessed by blinded interviewer-administered questionnaires in Sylheti before randomisation and 4 months later. RESULTS: Of the 1363 people invited, 476 (34%) agreed to take part and 92% (439/476) of participants were followed up. The programme improved self-efficacy (difference: 0.67, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.08 to 1.25) and self-management behaviour (0.53; 95% CI = 0.01 to 1.06). In the 51% (121/238) of intervention participants attending three or more of the 6-weekly education sessions the programme led to greater improvements in self-efficacy (1.47; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.82) and self-management behaviour (1.16; 95% CI = 0.50 to 1.82), and reduced HADS depression scores (0.64; 95% CI = 0.07 to 1.22). Communication and healthcare use were not significantly different between groups. The programme cost pound123 (181) per participant. CONCLUSION: A culturally-adapted CDSMP improves self-efficacy and self-care behaviour in Bangladeshi patients with chronic disease. Effects on health status were marginal. Benefits were limited by moderate uptake and attendance.

Influence of practices' ethnicity and deprivation on access to angiography: an ecological study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary heart disease is more common among some ethnic minority groups (particularly people from the Indian sub-continent living in Europe and North America) and in socially deprived populations. Hospital studies in the United Kingdom (UK) suggest that these groups have less access to treatment for coronary heart disease. Studies from primary care have found reduced access to angiography for lower social class groups, but there are no studies on the ethnicity of primary care populations in relation to angiography. AIMS: To determine the influence of ethnicity and social deprivation in primary care on access to coronary angiography. DESIGN OF STUDY: Ecological study measuring general practices' ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and nitrate prescribing rates with angiography rates. SETTING: General practices (n = 143) in East London, UK. METHOD: Ecological study measuring the proportion of general practice populations with South Asian ethnicity and high social deprivation score (Carstairs). Nitrate prescriptions and admissions for myocardial infarction per 1000 population per year were used as measures of need. Distance from the tertiary centre was used as a measure of supply. The outcome measure was coronary angiography procedures data (n = 869) collected in the context of the appropriateness of coronary revascularisation study. RESULTS: Practices with a higher proportion of South Asian patients had higher rates of angiography after adjustment for age, distance, deprivation, nitrate prescribing and myocardial infarction admissions (regression coefficient B = 0.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.03, P<0.001). There was no association between deprivation and angiography (regression coefficient B = -0.41, 95% CI = -0.13 to 0.05, P = 0.393). CONCLUSION: General practices with a higher proportion of South Asian patients had higher rates of angiography, challenging the widely held belief that access may be inequitable. Deprivation shows no relationship with angiography in this study.

Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings to determine whether or not screening increases identification and referral to support agencies, improves women's wellbeing, decreases further violence, or causes harm. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing effectiveness of screening. Study assessment, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two of the authors. Standardised estimations of the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. DATA SOURCES: Nine databases searched up to July 2012 (CENTRAL, Medline, Medline(R), Embase, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ASSIA), and five trials registers searched up to 2010. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of screening programmes for intimate partner violence involving all women aged ≥ 16 attending a healthcare setting. We included only studies in which clinicians in the intervention arm personally conducted the screening, or were informed of the screening result at the time of the consultation, compared with usual care (or no screening). Studies of screening programmes that were followed by structured interventions such as advocacy or therapeutic intervention were excluded. RESULTS: 11 eligible trials (n=13,027) were identified. In six pooled studies (n=3564), screening increased the identification of intimate partner violence (risk ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (4.26, 1.76 to 10.31). Based on three studies (n=1400), we detected no evidence that screening increases referrals to domestic violence support services (2.67, 0.99 to 7.20). Only two studies measured women's experience of violence after screening (three to 18 months after screening) and found no reduction in intimate partner violence. One study reported that screening does not cause harm. CONCLUSIONS: Though screening is likely to increase identification of intimate partner violence in healthcare settings, rates of identification from screening interventions were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of such violence. It is uncertain whether screening increases effective referral to supportive agencies. Screening does not seem to cause harm in the short term, but harm was measured in only one study. As the primary studies did not detect improved outcomes for women screened for intimate partner violence, there is insufficient evidence for screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding, or screening in combination with therapeutic intervention for women's long term wellbeing, are needed to inform the implementation of identification policies in healthcare settings.

Domestic violence: knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice of selected UK primary healthcare clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence affects one in four women and has significant health consequences. Women experiencing abuse identify doctors and other health professionals as potential sources of support. Primary care clinicians agree that domestic violence is a healthcare issue but have been reluctant to ask women if they are experiencing abuse. AIM: To measure selected UK primary care clinicians' current levels of knowledge, attitudes, and clinical skills in this area. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective observational cohort in 48 general practices from Hackney in London and Bristol, UK. METHOD: Administration of the Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey (PREMIS), comprising five sections: responder profile, background (perceived preparation and knowledge), actual knowledge, opinions, and practice issues. RESULTS: Two hundred and seventy-two (59%) clinicians responded. Minimal previous domestic violence training was reported by participants. Clinicians only had basic knowledge about domestic violence but expressed a positive attitude towards engaging with women experiencing abuse. Many clinicians felt poorly prepared to ask relevant questions about domestic violence or to make appropriate referrals if abuse was disclosed. Forty per cent of participants never or seldom asked about abuse when a woman presented with injuries. Eighty per cent said that they did not have an adequate knowledge of local domestic violence resources. GPs were better prepared and more knowledgeable than practice nurses; they also identified a higher number of domestic violence cases. CONCLUSION: Primary care clinicians' attitudes towards women experiencing domestic violence are generally positive but they only have basic knowledge of the area. Both GPs and practice nurses need more comprehensive training on assessment and intervention, including the availability of local domestic violence services.

Forty-eight hour access to primary care: practice factors predicting patients' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The government has proposed a 48-hour target for GP availability. Although many practices are moving towards delivering that goal, recent national patient surveys have reported a deterioration in patients' reports of doctor availability. What practice factors contribute to patients' perceptions of doctor availability? METHOD: A cross sectional patient survey (11,000 patients from 54 inner London practices, 7247 (66%) respondents) using the General Practice Assessment Survey. We asked patients how soon they could be seen in their practice following non-urgent consultation requests and related their aggregated responses to the characteristics of their practice. RESULTS: Three factors relating to practice administration and appointments systems operation independently predicted patients' reports of doctor availability. These were the proportion of patients asked to attend the surgery and wait to be seen, the proportion of patients seen using an emergency surgery arrangement, and the extent of practice computerization. CONCLUSION: Some practices may have difficulty in meeting the target for GP availability. Meeting the target will involve careful review of practice administrative procedures.

Effectiveness of innovations in nurse led chronic disease management for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: systematic review of evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of innovations in management of chronic disease involving nurses for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: 24 electronic databases searched for English or Dutch language studies published between January 1980 and January 2005. REVIEW METHODS: Included studies described inpatient, outpatient, and community based interventions for chronic disease management that were led, coordinated, or delivered by nurses. Hospital at home and early discharge schemes for acute exacerbations of COPD were excluded. RESULTS: We identified nine relevant randomised controlled trials, most of which had some potential methodological flaws. All the interventions seemed to be variations on a case management model. The interventions described could be divided into brief (one month) and longer term (around a year) or more intensive interventions. Only two studies examined the effect of brief interventions, these found little evidence of any benefit. Meta-analysis of the long term interventions failed to detect any influence on mortality at 9-12 months' follow-up (Peto odds ratio 0.85, 95% confidence interval 0.58 to 1.26). There was evidence that the long term interventions had not improved patients' health related quality of life, psychological wellbeing, disability, or pulmonary function. The evidence on whether long term interventions reduced readmissions to hospital was equivocal, but the only study exclusively directed at patients on long term oxygen therapy reported a reduction in readmission. We identified several outcomes where little or no evidence was available; these included patients' satisfaction, self management skills, adherence with treatment recommendations, the likelihood of smoking cessation, and the effect of the interventions on carers. CONCLUSION: There is little evidence to date to support the widespread implementation of nurse led management interventions for COPD, but the data are too sparse to exclude any clinically relevant benefit or harm arising from such interventions.

Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the acceptability and effectiveness of screening women for domestic violence in healthcare settings. DESIGN: Systematic review of published quantitative studies. SESRCH STRATEGY: Three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, and CINAHL) were searched for articles published in the English language up to February 2001. INCLUDED STUDIES: Surveys that elicited the attitudes of women and health professionals on the screening of women in health settings; comparative studies conducted in healthcare settings that measured rates of identification of domestic violence in the presence and absence of screening; studies measuring outcomes of interventions for women identified in health settings who experience abuse from a male partner or ex-partner compared with abused women not receiving an intervention. RESULTS: 20 papers met the inclusion criteria. In four surveys, 43-85% of women respondents found screening in healthcare settings acceptable. Two surveys of health professionals' views found that two thirds of physicians and almost half of emergency department nurses were not in favour of screening. In nine studies of screening compared with no screening, most detected a greater proportion of abused women identified by healthcare professionals. Six studies of interventions used weak study designs and gave inconsistent results. Other than increased referral to outside agencies, little evidence exists for changes in important outcomes such as decreased exposure to violence. No studies measured quality of life, mental health outcomes, or potential harm to women from screening programmes. CONCLUSION: Although domestic violence is a common problem with major health consequences for women, implementation of screening programmes in healthcare settings cannot be justified. Evidence of the benefit of specific interventions and lack of harm from screening is needed.