Risk Factors Associated With Primary Care-Reported Domestic Violence for Women Involved in Family Law Care Proceedings: Data Linkage Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Domestic violence and abuse (DVA) has a detrimental impact on the health and well-being of children and families but is commonly underreported, with an estimated prevalence of 5.5% in England and Wales in 2020. DVA is more common in groups considered vulnerable, including those involved in public law family court proceedings; however, there is a lack of evidence regarding risk factors for DVA among those involved in the family justice system. OBJECTIVE: This study examines risk factors for DVA within a cohort of mothers involved in public law family court proceedings in Wales and a matched general population comparison group. METHODS: We linked family justice data from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass Cymru [Wales]) to demographic and electronic health records within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage (SAIL) Databank. We constructed 2 study cohorts: mothers involved in public law family court proceedings (2011-2019) and a general population group of mothers not involved in public law family court proceedings, matched on key demographics (age and deprivation). We used published clinical codes to identify mothers with exposure to DVA documented in their primary care records and who therefore reported DVA to their general practitioner. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to examine risk factors for primary care-recorded DVA. RESULTS: Mothers involved in public law family court proceedings were 8 times more likely to have had exposure to DVA documented in their primary care records than the general population group (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 8.0, 95% CI 6.6-9.7). Within the cohort of mothers involved in public law family court proceedings, risk factors for DVA with the greatest effect sizes included living in sparsely populated areas (AOR 3.9, 95% CI 2.8-5.5), assault-related emergency department attendances (AOR 2.2, 95% CI 1.5-3.1), and mental health conditions (AOR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3-2.2). An 8-fold increased risk of DVA emphasizes increased vulnerabilities for individuals involved in public law family court proceedings. CONCLUSIONS: Previously reported DVA risk factors do not necessarily apply to this group of women. The additional risk factors identified in this study could be considered for inclusion in national guidelines. The evidence that living in sparsely populated areas and assault-related emergency department attendances are associated with increased risk of DVA could be used to inform policy and practice interventions targeting prevention as well as tailored support services for those with exposure to DVA. However, further work should also explore other sources of DVA, such as that recorded in secondary health care, family, and criminal justice records, to understand the true scale of the problem.

Methodological standards for the development and evaluation of clinical prediction rules: a review of the literature.

Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) that predict the absolute risk of a clinical condition or future outcome for individual patients are abundant in the medical literature; however, systematic reviews have demonstrated shortcomings in the methodological quality and reporting of prediction studies. To maximise the potential and clinical usefulness of CPRs, they must be rigorously developed and validated, and their impact on clinical practice and patient outcomes must be evaluated. This review aims to present a comprehensive overview of the stages involved in the development, validation and evaluation of CPRs, and to describe in detail the methodological standards required at each stage, illustrated with examples where appropriate. Important features of the study design, statistical analysis, modelling strategy, data collection, performance assessment, CPR presentation and reporting are discussed, in addition to other, often overlooked aspects such as the acceptability, cost-effectiveness and longer-term implementation of CPRs, and their comparison with clinical judgement. Although the development and evaluation of a robust, clinically useful CPR is anything but straightforward, adherence to the plethora of methodological standards, recommendations and frameworks at each stage will assist in the development of a rigorous CPR that has the potential to contribute usefully to clinical practice and decision-making and have a positive impact on patient care.

Potential impact of the validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A clinical vignette study.

BACKGROUND: The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) in children <3 years old with intracranial injury. OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of PredAHT on clinicians' AHT probability estimates and child protection (CP) actions, and assess inter-rater agreement between their estimates and between their CP actions, before and after PredAHT. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Twenty-nine clinicians from different specialties, at teaching and community hospitals. METHODS: Clinicians estimated the probability of AHT and indicated their CP actions in six clinical vignettes. One vignette described a child with AHT, another described a child with non-AHT, and four represented "gray" cases, where the diagnosis was uncertain. Clinicians calculated the PredAHT score, and reported whether this altered their estimate/actions. The 'think-aloud' method was used to capture the reasoning behind their responses. Analysis included linear modelling, linear mixed-effects modelling, chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, intraclass correlation, Gwet's AC1 coefficient and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Overall, PredAHT significantly influenced clinicians' probability estimates in all vignettes (p < 0.001), although the impact on individual clinicians varied. However, the influence of PredAHT on clinicians' CP actions was limited; after using PredAHT, 9/29 clinicians changed their CP actions in only 11/174 instances. Clinicians' AHT probability estimates and CP actions varied somewhat both before and after PredAHT. Qualitative data suggested that PredAHT may increase clinicians' confidence in their decisions when considered alongside other associated clinical, historical and social factors. CONCLUSIONS: PredAHT significantly influenced clinicians' AHT probability estimates, but had minimal impact on their CP actions.

Factors influencing child protection professionals' decision-making and multidisciplinary collaboration in suspected abusive head trauma cases: A qualitative study.

Clinicians face unique challenges when assessing suspected child abuse cases. The majority of the literature exploring diagnostic decision-making in this field is anecdotal or survey-based and there is a lack of studies exploring decision-making around suspected abusive head trauma (AHT). We aimed to determine factors influencing decision-making and multidisciplinary collaboration in suspected AHT cases, amongst 56 child protection professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We identified six themes influencing decision-making: 'professional', 'medical', 'circumstantial', 'family', 'psychological' and 'legal' factors. Participants diagnose AHT based on clinical features, the history, and the social history, after excluding potential differential diagnoses. Participants find these cases emotionally challenging but are aware of potential biases in their evaluations and strive to overcome these. Barriers to decision-making include lack of experience, uncertainty, the impact on the family, the pressure of making the correct diagnosis, and disagreements between professionals. Legal barriers include alternative theories of causation proposed in court. Facilitators include support from colleagues and knowledge of the evidence-base. Participants' experiences with multidisciplinary collaboration are generally positive, however child protection social workers and police officers are heavily reliant on clinicians to guide their decision-making, suggesting the need for training on the medical aspects of physical abuse for these professionals and multidisciplinary training that provides knowledge about the roles of each agency.

Acceptability of the Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) clinical prediction tool: A qualitative study with child protection professionals.

The validated Predicting Abusive Head Trauma (PredAHT) tool estimates the probability of abusive head trauma (AHT) based on combinations of six clinical features: head/neck bruising; apnea; seizures; rib/long-bone fractures; retinal hemorrhages. We aimed to determine the acceptability of PredAHT to child protection professionals. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 56 participants: clinicians (25), child protection social workers (10), legal practitioners (9, including 4 judges), police officers (8), and pathologists (4), purposively sampled across southwest United Kingdom. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and imported into NVivo for thematic analysis (38% double-coded). We explored participants' evaluations of PredAHT, their opinions about the optimal way to present the calculated probabilities, and their interpretation of probabilities in the context of suspected AHT. Clinicians, child protection social workers and police thought PredAHT would be beneficial as an objective adjunct to their professional judgment, to give them greater confidence in their decisions. Lawyers and pathologists appreciated its value for prompting multidisciplinary investigations, but were uncertain of its usefulness in court. Perceived disadvantages included: possible over-reliance and false reassurance from a low score. Interpretations regarding which percentages equate to 'low', 'medium' or 'high' likelihood of AHT varied; participants preferred a precise % probability over these general terms. Participants would use PredAHT with provisos: if they received multi-agency training to define accepted risk thresholds for consistent interpretation; with knowledge of its development; if it was accepted by colleagues. PredAHT may therefore increase professionals' confidence in their decision-making when investigating suspected AHT, but may be of less value in court.