How Valid is the Question of Fear of a Partner in Identifying Intimate Partner Abuse? A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Four Studies.

Intimate partner abuse (IPA) affects women's health, requiring accurate questions to identify the abuse. We investigated the accuracy of three questions about fear of an intimate partner in identifying exposure to IPA. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of these questions with the Composite Abuse Scale (CAS) using secondary data analysis of four existing studies. All studies recruited adult women from clinical settings, with sample sizes ranging from 1,257 to 5,871. We examined associations between demographic factors and fear through multivariate logistic regression, and analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of the questions about fear and IPA (CAS), generating a receiver operating curve (ROC). The prevalence of lifetime fear of a partner ranged from 9.5% to 26.7%; 14.0% of women reported fear in the past 12 months; and current fear ranged from 1.3% to 3.3%. Comparing the three questions, the question "afraid of a partner in the past 12 months" was considered the best question to identify IPA. This question had the greatest area under the ROC (0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.78-0.81]) compared with "are you currently afraid" (range 0.57-0.61) or "have you ever been afraid" (range 0.66-0.77); and demonstrated better sensitivity (64.8%) and specificity (94.8%). Demographic factors associated with "fear of a partner in the past 12 months" included being divorced/separated (odds ratio [OR] = 8.49, 95% CI = [6.70-10.76]); having a low income (OR = 4.21, 95% CI = [3.46-5.13]); and having less than 12 years of education (OR = 2.48, 95% CI = [2.04-3.02]). The question "In the last 12 months did you ever feel frightened by what your partner says or does?" has potential to identify a majority of women experiencing IPA, supporting its utilization where more comprehensive measures are not possible.

Infant Regulation: Associations with Child Language Development in a Longitudinal Cohort.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether infants who have regulatory problems (eg, sleeping, crying, and feeding problems) at 1 year of age are at increased risk of experiencing language difficulties at ages 5 and 11 years, compared with settled infants. STUDY DESIGN: Parent survey and child assessment data (n = 1131) were drawn from a longitudinal community cohort study. Latent Class Analysis identified 5 profiles of infant regulation including those who were settled (37%), had tantrums (21%), had sleep problems (25%), were moderately unsettled (13%), and severely unsettled (3%) at 12 months of age. Adjusted regression analyses examined associations between infant regulatory profiles and language ability (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-fourth edition) at ages 5 and 11 years. RESULTS: Infants who were moderately unsettled had lower language scores at age 5 (adjusted mean difference, -3.89; 95% CI, -6.92 to -0.86) and were more likely to have language difficulties (aOR, 2.71; 95% CI, 1.28-5.75), than infants who were settled. Infants who were severely unsettled at 12 months of age, had lower language scores at ages 5 (adjusted mean difference, -7.71; 95% CI, -13.07 to -2.36) and 11 (adjusted mean difference, -6.50; 95% CI, -11.60 to -1.39), than infants who were settled. Severely unsettled infants were 5 times more likely to have language difficulties at age 5 than their settled counterparts (aOR, 5.01; 95% CI, 1.72-14.63). CONCLUSIONS: Children at 1 year of age with multiple regulatory problems are at an increased risk for poorer language skills at ages 5 and 11 years.

Impact of a Hybrid Lung Cancer Screening Model on Patient Outcomes and Provider Behavior.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) implementation is complicated by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services reimbursement requirements of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling. LCS programs can utilize different structures to meet these requirements, but the impact of programmatic structure on provider behavior and screening outcomes is poorly described. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective chart review of 624 patients in a hybrid structure, academic LCS program, we compared characteristics and outcomes of primary care provider (PCP)- and specialist-screened patients. We also assessed the impact of the availability of an LCS specialty clinic and best practice advisory (BPA) on PCP ordering patterns using electronic medical record generated reports. RESULTS: During the study period of July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2018, 48% of patients were specialist-screened and 52% were PCP-screened; there were no clinically relevant differences in patient characteristics or screening outcomes between these populations. PCPs demonstrate distinct practice patterns when offered the choice of specialist-driven or PCP-driven screening. Increased exposure to a LCS BPA is associated with increased PCP screening orders. The addition of a nurse navigator into the LCS program increased documentation of shared decision-making and tobacco cessation counseling to > 95% and virtually eliminated screening of ineligible patients. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic interventions including a BPA and nurse navigator are associated with increased screening and improved program quality, as evidenced by reduced screening of ineligible patients, increased lung cancer risk of the screened population, and improved compliance with LCS guidelines. Individual PCPs demonstrate clear preferences regarding LCS that should be considered in program design.

Initiation and duration of breastfeeding of Aboriginal infants in South Australia.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of breastfeeding are well-established. Few studies have examined initiation and duration of breastfeeding of Aboriginal infants. METHODS: Population-based study of women giving birth to an Aboriginal infant in South Australia, July 2011-June 2013. FINDINGS: 344 women took part. Participants were representative in relation to maternal age, infant birthweight and gestation. Eighty-six percent initiated breastfeeding, declining to 54% at 12 weeks postpartum. Women living in remote areas were more likely to be breastfeeding at 12 weeks than women living in Adelaide (Odds Ratio=2.6, 95% Confidence Interval 1.5-4.7). Two-thirds of women (67%) attending standard public antenatal care in regional areas and 61% attending regional Aboriginal Family Birthing Program Services were breastfeeding at 12 weeks, compared to one third of women (36%) attending standard metropolitan public antenatal care and 49% of women attending metropolitan Aboriginal Family Birthing Program Services. Less than half of women (45%) described their postnatal care as 'very good', and 40% were not always able to access support with infant feeding when needed. The most common reasons for switching to formula before 6 weeks were: low milk supply/baby not gaining weight, mastitis/sore breasts or other feeding problems. Mothers also identified their own health as a factor. CONCLUSION: While the findings must be treated with caution due to small numbers, they suggest benefits for women attending Aboriginal Family Birthing Program services in the urban environment where rates of initiation and continued breastfeeding are lowest. Provision of culturally appropriate support to Aboriginal women during and after pregnancy is key to improving outcomes.