Prevalence and Screening Perinatal Intimate Partner Violence Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System 2012-15 [12N]

2019 ◽  
Vol 133 (1) ◽  
pp. 153S-153S
Author(s):  
Annie Minns ◽  
Alex Friedman Peahl ◽  
Yasamin Kusunoki ◽  
Mishka Terplan ◽  
Vanessa Dalton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Monitoring System ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Pregnancy Risk

Association Between Intimate Partner Violence and Breastfeeding Duration: Results From the 2004-2014 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordyn T. Wallenborn ◽  
Susan Cha ◽  
Saba W. Masho
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Monitoring System ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Breastfeeding Duration ◽  
Pregnancy Risk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

Background: Intimate partner violence is a major public health problem that disproportionately affects women. Current literature investigating the relationship between intimate partner violence and breastfeeding is inconsistent. Research aim: This study aims to investigate the relationship between physical intimate partner violence that occurs in the preconception or prenatal period and any breastfeeding duration. Methods: Data from the retrospective, cross-sectional 2004-2014 Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System were analyzed ( N = 195,264). The outcome, breastfeeding duration, was categorized as never breastfed, breastfed 8 weeks or less, and breastfeed more than 8 weeks. Multinomial logistic regression was used to obtain crude and adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: Approximately 6% ( n = 11,766) of survey respondents reported preconception and/or prenatal intimate partner violence, and 36.3% ( n = 67,667) of women reported never breastfeeding. The odds of discontinuing breastfeeding before 8 weeks were 18% higher among women who reported experiencing abuse 12 months before pregnancy compared with women who did not report intimate partner violence (adjusted odds ratio = 1.18; 95% confidence interval [1.01, 1.37]). All other estimates showed an overlapping 95% confidence interval. Conclusion: Breastfeeding is essential in improving maternal and child health; however, women in abusive relationships may face additional barriers to breastfeeding. Further research is needed to better understand the impact of violence on breastfeeding behaviors to inform healthcare practices and interventions.

Evaluating risk assessment instruments for intimate partner stalking and intimate partner violence.

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-118 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacomina Gerbrandij ◽  
Barry Rosenfeld ◽  
Alicia Nijdam-Jones ◽  
Michele Galietta
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Instruments

Persistence and Potential Lethality in Intimate Partner Violence: Evaluating the Concurrent and Predictive Validity of a Dual Risk Assessment Protocol

2021 ◽  
pp. 107780122098834
Author(s):  
Kirk R. Williams ◽  
Richard Stansfield ◽  
Jacquelyn Campbell
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Protocol ◽  
Risk Management Strategies ◽  
Domestic Violence Screening

This study seeks to determine the concurrent and predictive validity of a dual risk assessment protocol. It combines the risk of persistence in intimate partner violence (IPV) measured via the Domestic Violence Screening Instrument–Revised (DVSI-R) with supplemental items from the Danger Risk Assessment (DRA) bearing on the risk of potential lethality. We further test whether this assessment protocol reproduces disparities by race and ethnicity found in the larger population. Using a sample of 4,665 IPV male defendants with a female victim, analyses support both types of criterion validity. The DRA risk score is associated with felony charges, incarceration at the initial arrest, and the frequency of subsequent dangerous behavior. Results also suggest minimal predictive bias or disparate impact by race and ethnicity. Incorporating supplemental items bearing on potential lethality risk adds important information concerning the risk management strategies of those involved in IPV.

#15 Risk Assessment in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of Contemporary Approaches

Partner Abuse ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-86
Author(s):  
Tonia L. Nicholls ◽  
Michelle M. Pritchard ◽  
Kim A. Reeves ◽  
Ed Hiltermana
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner

Predictors of Severe Intimate Partner Violence Among Antisocial and Family-Only Perpetrators: Victims’ and Offenders’ Characteristics

2020 ◽  
pp. 088626052094371
Author(s):  
Raúl Aguilar Ruiz ◽  
María José González-Calderón
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Predictive Variables ◽  
Risk Assessment Tools ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Estimated Risk

The objective of this study was to determine the variables that predict severe intimate partner violence (S-IPV) according to the typology of abusers. The data were derived from 1,610 police reports on intimate partner violence (IPV) in Catalonia (Spain) between 2016 and 2017 obtained through the Police Risk Assessment Questionnaire. The study has compared a group of antisocial aggressors ( n = 613) with a group of family-only perpetrators ( n = 997). The chi-square test shows significant differences between antisocial and family-only groups for most of the variables analyzed. To determine the predictive variables of S-IPV in both groups, binary regression analyses were performed. In the antisocial group, death threats and degrading treatment by the aggressor significantly increased the probability of S-IPV, as did the victim’s minimization or justification of the abuse, living together with the aggressor, isolation, and drug or alcohol abuse. In the family-only group, an increase in the severity of the abuse and death threats against partners significantly increased the likelihood of perpetrating S-IPV. For the victims, being abused by a previous partner and fear for her physical integrity were found to increase the probability of suffering S-IPV. On the other hand, having filed a prior complaint appears to protect women from S-IPV, but only when the victims have antisocial perpetrators. The findings show that S-IPV risk factors are common regardless of the sociocultural context. Modifying the weighting of the factors that make up the risk assessment tools according to the typology of the abuser is suggested, as well as improving knowledge of these factors to increase the accuracy of the estimated risk. Finally, adapting supervision and monitoring measures according to the type of aggressor and taking into consideration the woman’s own perception of the danger she is in are also suggested.

Intimate Partner Violence Risk Assessment and Management

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 202-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
P. Randall Kropp
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Military Family ◽  
Violence Risk ◽  
Violence Risk Assessment ◽  
Original Intent ◽  
Family Advocacy ◽  
Managing Risk

While risk assessment is important in the management of intimate partner violence perpetrators, the science and practice of risk assessment in this field are still in early development. This article reviews the literature on intimate partner violence risk assessment. The original intent was to direct discussion to assist the Military Family Advocacy Program (FAP), U.S. Department of Defense, to develop guidelines for the treatment of domestic violence offenders. The article is divided into sections as follows: (a) Defining Risk; (b) The Risk Factors; (c) Models of Risk Assessment; (d) Existing Risk Instruments; (e) The Role of the Victim in Risk Assessment; (f) Qualifications to Conduct Assessments; (g) Communicating Risk; and (h) Managing Risk. Relevant issues and controversies are raised throughout the article.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document