Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Intervenciones para la prevención o la reducción de la violencia doméstica contra la mujer embarazada

Contraer todo Desplegar todo

Referencias

Calderon 2008 {published data only}

Calderon SH, Gilbert P, Jackson R, Kohn MA, Gerbert B. Cueing prenatal providers effects on discussions of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2008;34(2):134‐7.
Gilbert P. The health in pregnancy (HIP) study. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00540319 (accessed 20 February 2008).
Humphreys J, Tsoh JY, Kohn MA, Gerbert B. Increasing discussions of intimate partner violence in prenatal care using Video Doctor plus Provider Cueing: a randomized, controlled trial. Womens Health Issues 2011;21(2):136‐44.

Cripe 2010 {published data only}

Cripe SM, Sanchez SE, Sanchez E, Ayala Quintanilla B, Hernandez Alarcon C, Gelaye B, et al. Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: a pilot intervention program in Lima, Peru. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 2010;25(11):2054‐76.

Curry 2006 {published data only}

Curry MA, Durham L, Bullock L, Bloom T, Davis J. Nurse case management for pregnant women experiencing or at risk for abuse. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 2006;35(2):181‐92.

Kiely 2010 {published data only}

El‐Khorazaty MN, Johnson AA, Kiely M, El‐Mohandes AAE, Subramanian S, Laryea HA, et al. Recruitment and retention of low‐income minority women in a behavioral intervention to reduce smoking, depression, and intimate partner violence during pregnancy. BMC: Public Health 2007;7:233.
El‐Mohandes A, Kiely M, El‐Khorazaty N, Gantz M, Blake S, Subramanian S. Reduction of intimate partner violence in pregnancy: the effect of an integrated intervention in an African‐American low income population [abstract]. Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting; 2005 May 14‐17; Washington DC, USA. 2005:Abstract no: 2402.
El‐Mohandes AA, Kiely M, Gantz MG, El‐Khorazaty MN. Very preterm birth is reduced in women receiving an integrated behavioral intervention: a randomized controlled trial. Maternal & Child Health Journal 2011;15(1):19‐28.
El‐Mohandes AA, Kiely M, Joseph JG, Subramanian S, Johnson AA, Blake SM, et al. An intervention to improve postpartum outcomes in African‐American mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2008;112(3):611‐20.
El‐Mohandes AAE, for the NIH‐DC initiative to reduce infant mortality. An integrated psycho‐behavioral intervention during pregnancy has significant effects in reducing risks during the post‐partum period in African‐American women. Pediatric Academic Societies Annual Meeting; 2005 May 14‐17; Washington DC, USA. 2005:Abstract no: 39.
Joseph JG, El‐Mohandes AA, Kiely M, El‐Khorazaty MN, Gantz MG, Johnson AA, et al. Reducing psychosocial and behavioral pregnancy risk factors: results of a randomized clinical trial among high‐risk pregnant African American women. American Journal of Public Health 2009;99(6):1053‐61. [PUBMED: 19372532]
Kiely M, El‐Mohandes AA, El‐Khorazaty MN, Gantz MG. An integrated intervention to reduce intimate partner violence in pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2010;115(2 Pt 1):273‐83.
Subramanian S, Katz KS, Rodan M, Gantz MG, El‐Khorazaty NM, Johnson A, et al. An integrated randomized intervention to reduce behavioral and psychosocial risks: pregnancy and neonatal outcomes. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2012;16(3):545‐54.

McFarlane 2000 {published data only}

McFarlane J, Soeken K, Wiist W. An evaluation of interventions to decrease intimate partner violence to pregnant women. Public Health Nursing 2000;17(6):443‐51.

Nagle 2002 {published data only}

Nagle GA. Maternal participation, depression and partner violence in a state run child abuse prevention program: Louisiana nurse home visitation 1999‐2002 [thesis]. Louisiana: Tulane University, 2002.

Olds 2004 {published data only}

Olds DL, Robinson J, Pettitt L, Luckey DW, Holmberg J, Ng RK, et al. Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: age 4 follow‐up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2004;114(6):1560‐8. [PUBMED: 15574615]

Sharps 2013 {published data only}

Sharps P, Alhusen L, Bullock L, Bhandari S, Ghazarian S, Udo E, et al. Engaging and retaining abused women in perinatal home visitation programs. Pediatrics 2013;132:S134‐S139.

Tiwari 2005 {published data only}

Tiwari A, Leung WC, Leung TW, Humphreys J, Parker B, Ho PC. A randomised controlled trial of empowerment training for Chinese abused pregnant women in Hong Kong. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2005;112(9):1249‐56.

Zlotnick 2011 {published data only}

Zlotnick C, Capezza NM, Parker D. An interpersonally based intervention for low‐income pregnant women with intimate partner violence: a pilot study. Archives of Women's Mental Health 2011;14(1):55‐65. [PUBMED: 21153559]

Armstrong 1999 {published data only}

Armstrong KL, Fraser JA, Dadds MR, Morris J. A randomized, controlled trial of nurse home visiting to vulnerable families with newborns. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health 1999;35(3):237‐44. [PUBMED: 10404442]

Bair‐Merritt 2010 {published data only}

Bair‐Merritt MH, Jennings JM, Chen R, Burrell L, McFarlane E, Fuddy L, et al. Reducing maternal intimate partner violence after the birth of a child: a randomized controlled trial of the Hawaii healthy start home visitation program. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2010;164(1):16‐23.

Bhandari 2012 {published data only}

Bhandari S, Bullock LF, Bair‐Merritt M, Rose L, Marcantonio K, Campbell JC, et al. Pregnant women experiencing IPV: Impact of supportive and non‐supportive relationships with their mothers and other supportive adults on perinatal depression: A mixed methods analysis. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2012;33(12):827‐37.

Blackmore 2006 {published data only}

Blackmore ER, Carroll J, Reid A, Biringer A, Glazier RH, Midmer D, et al. The use of the Antenatal Psychosocial Health Assessment (ALPHA) tool in the detection of psychosocial risk factors for postpartum depression: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada: JOGC 2006;28(10):873‐8.
Carroll JC, Reid AJ, Biringer A, Midmer D, Glazier RH, Wilson L, et al. Effectiveness of the antenatal psychosocial health assessment (ALPHA) form in detecting psychosocial concerns: A randomized controlled trial. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2005;173(3):253‐9.

Bullock 2009 {published data only}

Bullock L, Everett KD, Mullen PD, Geden E, Longo DR, Madsen R. Baby BEEP: A randomized controlled trial of nurses' individualized social support for poor rural pregnant smokers. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2009;13(3):395‐406. [PUBMED: 18496746]

Eddy 2008 {published data only}

Eddy T, Kilburn E, Chang C, Bullock L, Sharps P. Facilitators and barriers for implementing home visit interventions to address intimate partner violence: town and gown partnerships. Nursing Clinics of North America 2008;43(3):419‐35, ix. [PUBMED: 18674673]

Janssen 2003 {published data only}

Janssen PA, Holt VL, Sugg NK, Emanuel I, Critchlow CM, Henderson AD. Intimate partner violence and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a population‐based study. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2003;188(5):1341‐7.

Janssen 2011 {published data only}

Janssen P. Can safety planning improve perinatal outcome among pregnant women exposed to intimate partner violence?. http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00831831 (accessed 15 February 2011).

Kataoka 2010 {published data only}

Kataoka Y, Yaju Y, Eto H, Horiuchi S. Self‐administered questionnaire versus interview as a screening method for intimate partner violence in the prenatal setting in Japan: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth 2010;10:84.

Koziol‐McLain 2010 {published data only}

Koziol‐McLain J, Garrett N, Fanslow J, Hassall I, Dobbs T, Henare‐Toka TA, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a brief emergency department intimate partner violence screening intervention. Annals of Emergency Medicine 2010;56(4):413‐23.e1. [PUBMED: 20538369]

Lipsky 2003 {published data only}

Lipsky S, Holt VL, Easterling TR, Critchlow CW. Impact of police‐reported intimate partner violence during pregnancy on birth outcomes. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2003;102(3):557‐64.

Macy 2007 {published data only}

Macy RJ, Martin SL, Kupper LL, Casanueva C, Guo S. Partner violence among women before, during, and after pregnancy: multiple opportunities for intervention. Women's Health Issues : official publication of the Jacobs Institute of Women's Health 2007;17(5):290‐9. [PUBMED: 17659882]

Marcenko 1994 {published data only}

Marcenko MO, Spence M. Home visitation services for at‐risk pregnant and postpartum women: a randomized trial. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 1994;64(3):468‐78. [PUBMED: 7977669]

McFarlane 1996 {published data only}

McFarlane J, Parker B, Soeken K. Physical abuse, smoking and substance use during pregnancy: prevalence, interrelationships and effects on birth weight. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 1996;25:313‐20.

Miller 2011 {published data only}

Miller E, Decker MR, McCauley HL, Tancredi DJ, Levenson RR, Waldman J, et al. A family planning clinic partner violence intervention to reduce risk associated with reproductive coercion. Contraception 2011;83(3):274‐80.

Parker 1999 {published data only}

Parker B, McFarlane J, Soeken K, Silva C, Reel S. Testing an intervention to prevent further abuse to pregnant women. Research in Nursing & Health 1999;22(1):59‐66. [PUBMED: 9928964]

Quinlivan 2003 {published data only}

Quinlivan JA, Box H, Evans SF. Postnatal home visits in teenage mothers: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2003;361(9361):893‐900. [PUBMED: 12648967]

Taft 2009a {published data only}

Taft A, Small R, Hegarty K, Lumley J, Watson L. Mosaic: the development phase of a randomised community intervention trial to reduce intimate partner abuse and depression in women pregnant or with children under five. [abstract]. Perinatal Society of Australia and New Zealand 7th Annual Congress; 2003 March 9‐12; Tasmania, Australia. 2003:A30.
Taft AJ, Small R, Hegarty KL, Lumley J, Watson LF, Gold L. MOSAIC (MOthers' Advocates In the Community): protocol and sample description of a cluster randomised trial of mentor mother support to reduce intimate partner violence among pregnant or recent mothers. BMC Public Health 2009;9:159.
Taft AJ, Small R, Hegarty KL, Watson LF, Gold L, Lumley JA. Mothers' AdvocateS In the Community (MOSAIC)‐‐non‐professional mentor support to reduce intimate partner violence and depression in mothers: a cluster randomised trial in primary care. BMC Public Health 2011;11:178.

Loree 2008 {published data only}

Loree A, Ondersma SJ, Beatty JR, Tzilos G, Chase SK, Schuster CR. Brief, universal intervention for child maltreatment prevention among high‐risk parents: effects on substance use, mental health, and intimate partner violence. Proceedings of the 70th Annual Scientific Meeting of the College on Problems of Drug Dependence; 2008 June 14‐19; San Juan, Puerto Rico, USA. 2008:11.

Feder 2013 {published data only}

Feder L. Enhanced nurse home visitation to prevent intimate partner violence. ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) (accessed July 2014). NCT01811719 2013.

Krishnan 2012 {published data only}

Krishnan S, Subbiah K, Chandra P, Srinivasan K. Minimizing risks and monitoring safety of an antenatal care intervention to mitigate domestic violence among young Indian women: The Dil Mil trial. BMC Public Health 2012;12:943.

Sharma 2013 {published data only}

Sharma N. Impact of women's empowerment program for abused pregnant women: A randomized controlled trial. ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) (accessed 5 February 2014). NCT01933555 2013.

Taft 2012 {published data only}

Taft AJ, Small R, Humphreys C, Hegarty K, Walter R, Adams C, et al. Enhanced maternal and child health nurse care for women experiencing intimate partner/family violence: protocol for MOVE, a cluster randomised trial of screening and referral in primary health care. BMC Public Health 2012;12(1):811.

Temmerman 2010 {published data only}

Temmerman M. Intimate partner violence and pregnancy, a perinatal care intervention study (MOM). ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) (accessed July 2014). NCT01158690 2010.

Arias 2002

Arias I, Dankwort J, Douglas U, Dutton MA, Stein K. Violence against women: the state of batterer prevention programs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2002;30(3 Suppl):157‐65. [PUBMED: 12508520]

Babu 2009

Babu BV, Kar SK. Domestic violence against women in eastern India: a population‐based study on prevalence and related issues. BMC Public Health 2009;9:129. [PUBMED: 19426515]

Bacchus 2004

Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S, Haworth A. Prevalence of domestic violence when midwives routinely enquire in pregnancy. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2004;111(5):441‐5.

Ballard 1998

Ballard TJ, Saltzman LE, Gazmararian JA, Spitz AM, Lazorick S, Marks JS. Violence during pregnancy: measurement issues. American Journal of Public Health 1998;88(2):274‐6. [PUBMED: 9491021]

Beydoun 2010

Beydoun HA, Al‐Sahab B, Beydoun MA, Tamim H. Intimate partner violence as a risk factor for postpartum depression among Canadian women in the Maternity Experience Survey. Annals of Epidemiology 2010;20(8):575‐83.

Bohn 1996

Bohn D, Holz K. Sequel of abuse. Journal of Nursing and Midwifery 1996;41(6):442‐56.

Browne 1997

Browne A. When Battered Women Kill. 2nd Edition. Australia: Collier MacMillan Publication, 1997:232.

Campbell 1992

Campbell J, Poland M, Waller J, Ager J. Correlates of battering during pregnancy. Research in Nursing & Health 1992;15:219‐26.

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics 2000

Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics. Family violence in Canada: a statistical profile. Cat no 85‐224‐XIE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2000.

Canterino 1999

Canterino JC, VanHorn LG, Harrigan JT, Ananth CV, Vintzileos AM. Domestic abuse in pregnancy: a comparison of a self‐completed domestic abuse questionnaire with a directed interview. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1999;181(5 Pt 1):1049‐51.

Chamberlain 2000

Chamberlain L, Perham‐Hester KA. Physicians' screening practices for female partner abuse during prenatal visits. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):141‐8.

Coker 2012

Coker AL, Garcia LS, Williams CM, Crawford TN, Clear ER, McFarlane J, et al. Universal psychosocial screening and adverse pregnancy outcomes in an academic obstetric clinic. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2012;119(6):1180‐9. [PUBMED: 22617583]

Daoud 2012

Daoud N, Urquia ML, O'Campo P, Heaman M, Janssen PA, Smylie J, et al. Prevalence of abuse and violence before, during, and after pregnancy in a national sample of Canadian women. American Journal of Public Health 2012;102(10):1893‐901. [PUBMED: 22897526]

Diaz‐Olavarrieta 2002

Diaz‐Olavarrieta C, Ellertson C, Paz F, De Leon SP, Alarcon‐Segovia D. Prevalence of battering among 1780 outpatients at an internal medicine institution in Mexico. Social Science & Medicine 2002;55(9):1589‐602.

Dugan 2003

Dugan L, Nagin DS, Rosenfeld R. Do domestic violence services save lives?. National Institute of Justice Journal  2003;250:20‐5.

El Kady 2005

El Kady D, Gilbert WM, Xing G, Smith LH. Maternal and neonatal outcomes of assaults during pregnancy. Obstetrics & Gynecology 2005;105(2):357‐63.

El‐Mohandes 2008

El‐Mohandes AA, Kiely M, Joseph JG, Subramanian S, Johnson AA, Blake SM, et al. An intervention to improve postpartum outcomes in African‐American mothers: a randomized controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 2008;112(3):611‐20. [PUBMED: 18757660]

Ezechi 2004

Ezechi OC, Kalu BK, Ezechi LO, Nwokoro CA, Ndububa VI, Okeke GC. Prevalence and pattern of domestic violence against pregnant Nigerian women. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2004;24(6):652‐6.

Family Violence Prevention Fund 1999

Family Violence Prevention Fund. Preventing Domestic Violence: Clinical Guidelines on Routine Screening. US Department of Health and Human Services, 1999.

Feder 2009

Feder G, Ramsay J, Dunne D, Rose M, Arsene C, Norman R, et al. How far does screening women for domestic (partner) violence in different health‐care settings meet criteria for a screening programme? Systematic reviews of nine UK National Screening Committee criteria. Health Technology Assessment 2009;13(16):iii‐iv, xi‐xiii, 1‐113, 137‐347.

Feldhaus 1997

Feldhaus KM, Koziol‐McLain J, Amsbury HL, Norton IM, Lowenstein SR, Abbott JT. Accuracy of 3 brief screening questions for detecting partner violence in the emergency department. JAMA 1997;277(17):1357‐61.

Flach 2011

Flach C, Leese M, Heron J, Evans J, Feder G, Sharp D, et al. Antental domestic violence, maternal mental health and subsequent child behaviour: a cohort study. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2011;118(11):1383‐91.

Ford‐Gilboe 2011

Ford‐Gilboe M, Merritt‐Gray M, Varcoe C, Wuest J. A theory‐based primary health care intervention for women who have left abusive partners. ANS. Advances in Nursing Science 2011;34(3):198‐214. [PUBMED: 21654310]

Gazmararian 1996

Gazmararian JA, Lazorick S, Spitz AM, Ballard TJ, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. Prevalence of violence against pregnant women. JAMA 1996;275(24):1915‐20.

Gazmararian 2000

Gazmararian JA, Petersen R, Spitz AM, Goodwin MM, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. Violence and reproductive health: current knowledge and future research directions. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):79‐84. [PUBMED: 10994575]

Goodwin 1990

Goodwin T, Breen M. Pregnancy outcome and fetomaternal hemorrhage after noncatastrophic trauma. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 1990;162:665‐71.

GRADE 2008

GRADEpro [Computer program]. Jan Brozek, Andrew Oxman, Holger Schünemann. Version 3.6 for Windows2008.

Harwin 2006

Harwin N. Putting a stop to domestic violence in the United Kingdom: challenges and opportunities. Violence Against Women 2006;12(6):556‐67.

Hedin 1999

Hedin LW, Grimstad H, Moller A, Schei B, Janson PO. Prevalence of physical and sexual abuse before and during pregnancy among Swedish couples. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1999;78(4):310‐5.

Hedin 2000

Hedin LW, Janson PO. Domestic violence during pregnancy. The prevalence of physical injuries, substance use, abortions and miscarriages. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 2000;79(8):625‐30.

Higgins 2011

Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.

Horiuchi 2009

Horiuchi S, Yaju Y, Kataoka Y, Grace Eto H, Matsumoto N. Development of an evidence‐based domestic violence guideline: supporting perinatal women‐centred care in Japan. Midwifery 2009;25(1):72‐8. [PUBMED: 17399864]

Howard 2010

Howard LM, Trevillion K, Agnew‐Davies R. Domestic violence and mental health. International Review of Psychiatry 2010;22(5):525‐34.

Jahanfar 2007

Jahanfar S, Kamarudin EB, Sarpin MA, Zakaria NB, Abdul Rahman RB, Samsuddin RD. The prevalence of domestic violence against pregnant women in Perak, Malaysia. Archives of Iranian Medicine 2007;10(3):376‐8. [PUBMED: 17604477]

Janssen 2006

Janssen P, Dascal‐Weichhendler H, McGregor M. Assessment for intimate partner violence: where do we stand?. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: JABFM 2006;19(4):413‐5. [PUBMED: 16809657]

Jejeebhoy 1998

Jejeebhoy SJ. Associations between wife‐beating and fetal and infant death: impressions from a survey in rural India. Studies in Family Planning 1998;29(3):300‐8.

Jewkes 2001

Jewkes R, Penn‐Kekana L, Levin J, Ratsaka M, Schrieber M. Prevalence of emotional, physical and sexual abuse of women in three South African provinces. South African Medical Journal 2001;91(5):421‐8.

Kramer 2004

Kramer A, Lorenzon D, Mueller G. Prevalence of intimate partner violence and health implications for women using emergency departments and primary care clinics. Women's Health Issues 2004;14(1):19‐29. [PUBMED: 15001185]

Lewis 2007

Lewis G, editor. The Seventh Report on Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths in the United Kingdom. Saving Mothers' Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2003–2005. London: CEMACH, 2007.

Lewis 2011

Lewis G, editor. The Eighth Report of the Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths 'Saving Mothers' Lives: Reviewing maternal deaths to make motherhood safer: 2006‐2008. London: National Patient Safety Agency, Scottish Programme for Clinical Effectiveness in Reproductive Health, Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety of Northern Ireland and the States of Jersey and Guernsey, and Isle of Man, 2011.

McCloskey 2006

McCloskey LA, Lichter E, Williams C, Gerber M, Wittenberg E, Ganz M. Assessing intimate partner violence in health care settings leads to women's receipt of interventions and improved health. Public Health Reports (Washington, D.C.: 1974) 2006;121(4):435‐44. [PUBMED: 16827445]

McFarlane 2006

McFarlane JM, Groff JY, O'Brien JA, Watson K. Secondary prevention of intimate partner violence: a randomized controlled trial. Nursing Research 2006;55(1):52‐61. [PUBMED: 16439929]

Mezey 2000

Mezey G, Bewley S, Bacchus L, Haworth A. Prevalence of domestic violence during pregnancy in a UK population: impact on maternal health and obstetric outcome: research briefing. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists London2000.

Nagassar 2010

Nagassar RP, Rawlins JM, Sampson NR, Zackerali J, Chankadyal K, Ramasir C, et al. The prevalence of domestic violence within different socio‐economic classes in Central Trinidad. West Indian Medical Journal 2010;59(1):20‐5. [PUBMED: 20931908]

Nelson 2012

Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Blazina I. Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence and Elderly and Vulnerable Adults for Abuse. Systematic Review to Update the 2004 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Evidence Syntheses, No. 92. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2012. [PUBMED: 22675737]

Newberger 1992

Newberger E, Barkan S, Lieberman E. Abuse of pregnant women and adverse birth outcome. JAMA 1992;267:2370‐2.

Ng 2005

Ng C, Peterson T. The Ninth Malaysia Plan: gender, rights and development. Universiti Malaya and UN Malaysia Conference on Progress and Challenges in Human Development in Malaysia: Ideas for the Ninth Malaysia Plan; 2005 July 11‐12; Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. 2005:Abstract no: 1290.

O'Campo 2011

O'Campo P, Kirst M, Tsamis C, Chambers C, Ahmad F. Implementing successful intimate partner violence screening programs in health care settings: evidence generated from a realist‐informed systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 2011;72(6):855‐66. [PUBMED: 21330026]

O'Reilly 2010

O'Reilly R, Beale B, Gillies D. Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: a systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse 2010;11(4):190‐201. [PUBMED: 20688785]

Parker 1994

Parker B, McFarlane J, Soeken K. Abuse during pregnancy: effects on maternal complications and birth weight in adult and teenage women. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1994;84:323‐8.

Parker 2002

Parker B, Chouaf K. Intimate partner violence following pregnancy. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 2002;156(4):313‐4.

Parsons 2000

Parsons L, Goodwin MM, Petersen R. Violence against women and reproductive health: toward defining a role for reproductive health care services. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2):135‐40.

Petersen 1997

Petersen R, Gazmararian J, Spitz A. Violence and adverse pregnancy outcomes. American Journal of Violence 1997;13(5):366‐73.

Ramsay 2002

Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 2002;325(7359):314. [PUBMED: 12169509]

Ramsay 2009

Ramsay J, Carter Y, Davidson L, Dunne D, Eldridge S, Hegarty K, et al. Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well‐being of women who experience intimate partner abuse. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005043.pub2]

RevMan 2014 [Computer program]

The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.

Rodriguez 2001

Rodriguez E, Lasch KE, Chandra P, Lee J. The relation of family violence, employment status, welfare benefits, and alcohol drinking in the United States. Western Journal of Medicine 2001;174(5):317‐23.

Rose 2010

Rose L, Alhusen J, Bhandari S, Soeken K, Marcantonio K, Bullock L, et al. Impact of intimate partner violence on pregnant women's mental health: mental distress and mental strength. Issues in Mental Health Nursing 2010;31(2):103‐11.

Saltzman 2003

Saltzman LE, Johnson CH, Gilbert BC, Goodwin MM. Physical abuse around the time of pregnancy: an examination of prevalence and risk factors in 16 states. Maternal and Child Health Journal 2003;7(1):31‐43.

Schunemann 2009

Schunemann HJ. GRADE: from grading the evidence to developing recommendations. A description of the system and a proposal regarding the transferability of the results of clinical research to clinical practice [GRADE: Von der Evidenz zur Empfehlung. Beschreibung des Systems und Losungsbeitrag zur Ubertragbarkeit von Studienergebnissen]. Zeitschrift fur Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualitat im Gesundheitswesen 2009;103(6):391‐400. [PUBMED: 19839216]

Shah 2010

Shah PS, Shah J. Maternal exposure to domestic violence and pregnancy and birth outcomes: a systematic review and meta‐analyses. Journal of Women's Health 2010;19(11):2017‐31. [PUBMED: 20919921]

Sharps 2008

Sharps PW, Campbell J, Baty ML, Walker KS, Bair‐Merritt MH. Current evidence on perinatal home visiting and intimate partner violence. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, and Neonatal Nursing 2008;37(4):480‐90; quiz 490‐1. [PUBMED: 18754987]

Spangaro 2010

Spangaro JM, Zwi AB, Poulos RG, Man WY. Who tells and what happens: disclosure and health service responses to screening for intimate partner violence. Health & Social Care in the Community 2010;18(6):671‐80. [PUBMED: 20637041]

Stark 1999

Stark E, Flitcraft A. Frazier W. Medicine and patriarchal violence: the social construction of a "private" event. International Journal of Health Services 1999;9:461‐93.

Taft 2009b

Taft AJ, Small R, Hegarty KL, Lumley J, Watson LF, Gold L. MOSAIC (MOthers' Advocates In the Community): protocol and sample description of a cluster randomised trial of mentor mother support to reduce intimate partner violence among pregnant or recent mothers. BMC Public Health 2009;9:159.

Valladares 2005

Valladares E, Pena R, Persson LA, Hogberg U. Violence against pregnant women: prevalence and characteristics. A population‐based study in Nicaragua. BJOG: an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology 2005;112(9):1243‐8.

Van Parys 2014

Van Parys AS, Verhamme A, Temmerman M, Verstraelen H. Intimate partner violence and pregnancy: a systematic review of interventions. PloS One 2014;9(1):e85084. [PUBMED: 24482679]

Wathen 2003

Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA 2003;289(5):589‐600.

Wiist 1999

Wiist WH, McFarlane J. The effectiveness of an abuse assessment protocol in public health prenatal clinics. American Journal of Public Health 1999;89(8):1217‐21.

World Health Organization 2000

World Health Organization. National Report on Violence and Health, Malaysia. WHO, Center for Health Development, Kobe, Japan report (WHO/WKC/Tech.Se./05.2). Geneva: WHO, 2000.

Jahanfar 2011

Jahanfar S, Janssen PA, Howard L. Interventions for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, Issue 11. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009414]

Jahanfar 2013

Jahanfar S, Janssen PA, Howard LM, Dowswell T. Interventions for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2013, Issue 2. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009414.pub2]

Characteristics of studies

Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]

Calderon 2008

Methods

Stratified RCT. Women were stratified by risk factor combination (1 of 15 possible combinations of 4 risk behaviours (IPV, alcohol, drugs, smoking)).

Participants

Women attending 5 prenatal clinics in the San Francisco bay area (USA). Only women with risk factors were randomised. 37 women experiencing DV were randomised.

Inclusion criteria: women less than 26 weeks’ gestation, English speaking, aged 18 years or older, not attending for first prenatal visit who screened positive for one (or more than one) of 4 risk factors (smoking, alcohol, drug use or DV).

Exclusion criteria: women who had no risk factors were not randomised.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: video doctor‐assessment with appropriate messages for risk factor (e.g. encouraging women to discuss problem) and healthcare staff were alerted and given a cueing sheet to discuss risk factor (DV). (20 women randomised to the intervention group.)

Control/Comparison intervention: all women had video doctor‐assessment but healthcare staff did not receive cueing sheet. Women randomised to the control group received usual care and any discussion of risk was at the discretion of healthcare staff.  (17 women randomised to control condition.)

Outcomes

This study examined whether discussions re DV occurred and women’s views of the discussion (acceptability and helpfulness). No other outcome data were reported.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Sequence generation was by a computer programme, however, it was not clear how stratification affected the randomisation process as some women may have had several risk factors (it was not clear whether these women would then receive several intervention messages and several staff cueing forms).

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

By computer programme.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

37 women experiencing DV were randomised and data appear available for all women at the immediate post‐intervention assessment. There were some missing data at follow‐up (32 were followed up at 2 months) but all women were included in a sensitivity analysis (those lost to follow‐up were assumed to have had no discussion of DV).               

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Results for women assessed with a single risk factor were reported but it seems that women may have had multiple risk factors and multiple interventions and there may have been some interaction effect (it is possible that if a woman had multiple risk factors then she was more likely than those with a single risk factor to have discussions with healthcare staff).   

Other bias

Low risk

Other bias not apparent.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Staff would have been aware of group assignment because the interview would have been conducted according to the intervention cue sheet for the intervention group. It is unclear whether women would have been aware of group assignment.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Staff would have been aware of group assignment because the interview would have been conducted according to the intervention cue sheet for the intervention group. It is unclear whether women would have been aware of group assignment. Outcomes are self‐reported, so it is unclear whether these would have been shaped by knowledge of group assignment.

Cripe 2010

Methods

RCT. 2‐arm trial with individual randomisation.

Participants

Setting:  public hospital in Lima, Peru, providing services to low‐income women living in Lima. Recruitment in 2007. 

Inclusion criteria: 220 pregnant women (gestational age between 12 and 26 weeks’ gestation) attending for care in the study hospital who screened positive for DV on the modified Abuse Assessment screen and able to speak and understand Spanish. (Women screened positive if they said yes to any of the following in the past year – been pushed, shoved, slapped, hit, kicked or otherwise physically hurt or been forced into sexual activity by a former or current partner.)

Interventions

Experimental intervention: (110 randomised) empowerment intervention during pregnancy which included standard care (a card with information about agencies providing IPV support). Women in the empowerment intervention received supportive counselling and education, and advice in the areas of safety by a trained social worker lasting about 30 minutes. Interviewers listened empathetically to the women and acknowledged their perceptions and feelings. Interviewers also helped women understand the cycle of violence and reviewed components of the safety plan including behaviours indicated in the Safety Behavior Checklist. For example, women were asked how they might secure and hide money and important documents such as birth certificates. Interviewers helped women develop a code to use with family and trusted friends to signal the need for assistance and/or to mentally plan their escape when needed. Women were given a brochure with a 13‐item safety plan to reinforce safety behaviours. To make the safety plan brochure less conspicuous, other prenatal brochures on topics such as breastfeeding or nutrition were also offered to the women. Interviewers also provided a list of community resources, such as emergency shelter, legal aid, law enforcement, and counselling, and strategies for seeking help from these resources. As part of the intervention, interviewers also offered to assist women with telephone calls to social service agencies or women's groups who could act as advocates for abused women. At the conclusion of the empowerment intervention session, interviewers helped women determine if it was safe for her to keep the safety plan brochure and the referral card. Women were free to discuss the pros and cons of leaving the abuser, reporting the abuser to law enforcement, or applying for a protection order.

 

Control/Comparison intervention: (110 randomised) women randomised to receive standard care received a wallet‐size referral card listing agencies that provide DV services to abused women (e.g., legal, social services,and law enforcement). No counselling, advocacy, education, or other services were offered to women in this group during pregnancy. However, they were provided the empowerment intervention, specifically supportive counselling and education, and advice in the areas of safety by a trained social worker at the conclusion of the study during the 6th week postpartum visit.

Outcomes

Physical, functional and emotional functioning at follow‐up as compared with baseline. Use of community resources and safety behaviours. Episodes of violence in the past year were reported at baseline but data on this outcome were not reported at follow‐up.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Assignment was by a “randomised block design” but how the sequence was generated and block size were not stated.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Methods used to allocate women to groups at the point of randomisation were not described.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

Sixteen women (7.3%) were lost to follow‐up.

220 women were randomised and follow‐up data were available for 204.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Episodes of violence at follow‐up were not reported in this paper  (it may be that these outcomes will be addressed in future papers).

Other bias

Low risk

Groups were reported to be similar at baseline and there was no other bias apparent.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Women and staff would be aware of the purpose of the study and which group they were assigned to. Post‐intervention interviews were carried out by a different interviewer than those who carried out the pre‐intervention ones to reduce bias. It was not clear what impact lack of blinding would have on the outcomes reported.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Women and staff would be aware of the purpose of the study and which group they were assigned to. Post‐intervention interviews were carried out by a different interviewer than those who carried out the pre‐intervention ones to reduce bias. It was not clear what impact lack of blinding would have on the outcomes reported.

Curry 2006

Methods

RCT, 2 arms with individual randomisation (2 sites).

Participants

1000 women  who spoke  English and were 13 to 23 weeks pregnant at the time of recruitment. At the completion of the first assessment, women were randomised to 1 of the 2 groups, 501 to the control  group and 499 to the treatment group. Prenatal Psychosocial Profile test was used to estimate women's stress level. After women at risk of abuse with high level of stress were identified, 106 were in the intervention group and 101 in the control group.

Study carried out in two prenatal clinics of a Health Maintenance Organisation in the USA (clinics both served what was described as a geographically, culturally and economically diverse group). Each clinic enrolled 500 women over the period 2001‐2003.

 

Exclusion criteria: adolescents for whom consent was not available.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: standard care plus video about abuse (watched by < 30%), 24/7 access to Nurse Case Management. Women were contacted by phone by nurse who actively managed their care. The intervention was intended to provide support and was individually tailored to women’s needs.

Control/Comparison intervention: standard care which involved written information on community and health services resources for abused women. (Women assessed as being in danger were provided with safety planning and the offer of referral to the clinic social worker.)

Outcomes

Process outcomes (number of contacts, etc). The outcomes reported in this paper related to stress scores on Prenatal Psychosocial Profile measure  (it was not clear what other outcome information was collected).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Not described.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

1000 women were enrolled on the study. 106 women in the intervention group and 101 women in the control group were assessed as being at high risk at the first study assessment and results were only provided for the high‐risk group (i.e. approximately 20% of those randomised).  Of the high‐risk groups 99 of the high‐risk intervention group and 92 of the high‐risk control group provided follow‐up data.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

It was not clear what outcome data were collected.

Other bias

Unclear risk

There was very little information on methods and there may be further outcome data not published in this paper.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding not described. It is likely that women and staff were aware of group assignment.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding not described. It is likely that outcome assessors were aware of group assignment.

Kiely 2010

Methods

A complex RCT with several arms and 4 different interventions targeting women with risk factors (depression, smoking, passive smoking and IPV). Women may have had more than 1 risk factor and may have been randomised to receive more than 1 intervention. Women at risk of IPV were randomised into intervention and control arms.

Participants

Setting: 6 community prenatal clinics serving mainly African‐American women in Washington DC. July 2001‐2003.

Inclusion criteria: women from minority groups (mainly African‐American) aged at least 18 years, 28 weeks pregnant or less, English speaking and resident in the study area.

Exclusion criteria: women who were identified as suicidal at baseline or follow‐up were excluded.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: cognitive behavioural intervention focusing on 4 risk factors (smoking, passive smoking, depression and DV). Women received an intervention specifically focusing on their individual risk factors (most women had more than one risk factor and would receive more than 1 intervention component. 336 women reported DV and 169 were randomised to the DV intervention group. The intervention was delivered as part of routine prenatal visits by psychologists or social workers. The intervention was based on empowerment theory and emphasised safety planning and behaviours and a list of phone numbers for community resources was provided. The intervention took place over several sessions lasting about 30 minutes and women received a small incentive for attending sessions. There were 2 postpartum booster sessions to reinforce messages. 51% of women in the intervention group received 4 or more sessions and a quarter attended none.

Comparison group: 167 of the women reporting DV received standard care according to protocols at each clinic.

Outcomes

DV was identified by Abuse Assessment Screen at baseline. Follow‐up sessions used Conflict Tactics Scale to identify women at risk.

Episodes of DV during pregnancy and in the early postpartum period (minor and severe and sexual violence). Low and very low birthweight, gestational age at delivery, preterm and very preterm birth.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated randomisation scheme with site and risk specific permuted block randomisation with investigators and staff blinded to block size.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation by external data co‐ordinating centre by telephone.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

More than 1000 women were recruited to this trial and randomised. Randomisation was stratified according to baseline risk and only those women with DV risk were randomised for the DV intervention. (In this review we have reported findings for those women identified at risk of DV and randomised to receive or not receive the DV intervention; If we carried out analysis using all women randomised any intervention effect would be diluted considerably). 336 with DV risk had baseline data but there were considerable amounts of missing data at follow‐up, although there were some outcome data for at least 1 of the follow‐up interviews for 306 women and outcome data for babies were available for 306 women. It was reported that women were analysed by randomisation group whether or not they received the planned intervention.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Most women had more than 1 risk factor and were likely to receive different interventions – the interventions may have had some synergistic or interactive effect. But results are reported only by single risk factors – i.e. this paper only focuses on women reporting DV at baseline. 

Other bias

Unclear risk

Intervention and control group characteristics appeared similar at baseline. It was no clear how many woman received multiple interventions or whether women in the control group received other interventions to address risk factors other than DV.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Women and staff delivering intervention would be aware of group assignment. Telephone interviewers were reported to be blind to allocation but it was not clear whether this was successful (women may have revealed their allocation during interviews).

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Women and staff delivering intervention would be aware of group assignment. Telephone interviewers were reported to be blind to allocation but it was not clear whether this was successful (women may have revealed their allocation during interviews).

McFarlane 2000

Methods

3‐arm trial. Quasi‐randomisation (clinics rotated through different interventions; “monthly sequential assignment.

Participants

Setting: 2 prenatal clinics in SW USA. Each clinic served 2000‐3000 pregnant women each year and 97% were Hispanic.

Inclusion criteria: women who reported abuse in the year prior to or during current pregnancy by current or former male partner (mean gestational age at recruitment 18 weeks).

Exclusion criteria: not described.

Interventions

335 women agreed to participate. 96% women Hispanic – and only results for these 329 women are reported in this paper.

3 interventions:

  1. Brief intervention (control). Women were provided with a card with phone numbers for community resources to help with DV and information about personal safety planning. (No other counselling or education routinely offered) (n = 113).

  2. Counselling intervention group: unlimited access to counsellor with expertise in DV. Women could drop in to the maternity clinic or arrange appointments with the counsellor or reach the counsellor by phone or pager. The counsellor gave advice and support and assisted women in accessing other services. Counselling from recruitment in pregnancy up until delivery (n = 98).

  3. Outreach intervention: same counselling intervention as group 2 plus trained lay mentor who offered support and assistance in accessing services. The mentor was available to visit or by phone. The intervention was from recruitment in pregnancy up until delivery (n = 118).

Outcomes

Follow‐up at 2, 6, 12 and 18 months post‐intervention (i.e. after delivery). Outcomes were reported abuse and use of resources. Abuse on Severity of Violence against Women Scale (SVAWS) a 46 item scale; 19 items on threats of violence and 21 items on physical violence and 6 items on sexual violence with 4 point response re how often the behaviour occurred – never (1) to many times (4). Possible scores 19‐76 on threats and 27‐108 on violence.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

High risk

Women were allocated by clinic.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

High risk

Women were allocated by clinic; it is possible that women attending the different clinics were different and the order in which staff delivered the interventions may have had an effect.  

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Results only reported for Hispanic women in the sample.

Results by intervention group were available for 259/329  women (79%) (> 20% missing data).

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Results in this paper for Hispanic women only – while they were 96% of the population it is not clear why other women were excluded or whether they were balanced across groups. Results are reported by gestational age at recruitment and over time – so there were a large number of possible correlations.   

Other bias

Low risk

Groups were described as similar at baseline. Other bias not apparent.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No mention of blinding; lack of blinding may have affected responses and other aspects of care.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

No mention of blinding; lack of blinding may have affected responses and other aspects of care.

Nagle 2002

Methods

3‐arm RCT. Individual women randomised.

Participants

Setting: pregnant women attending state public health clinics in 3 parishes in Louisiana USA 1999‐2000.

Inclusion criteria: pregnant women less than 28 weeks’ gestation with no previous live births and Medicaid eligible.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: 2 intervention arms that were combined in the results.

  1. Nurse home visits with visits during pregnancy and up to the child being 2 years old. Details of the content of visits were not described in detail.

  2. As 1 but the nurse home‐visiting team included a mental health specialist.

Control/Comparison intervention: usual care (not clearly described).

Outcomes

This thesis mainly reports on participation and adherence.  Long‐term outcomes included child development, abuse and neglect, injury, subsequent pregnancy, mother‐child interaction and maternal employment.

At follow‐up in the third trimester (28‐34 weeks) and at 6‐8 months postpartum results were described for depression (Beck Depression Inventory) and for partner violence (current and previous) (partner violence interview) with 13 items on physical violence (0 – never experienced, 1 – has experienced) (the time frame for reporting violence was not described).

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Randomisation was carried out by an external agency.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

It was stated that the nurses carrying out recruitment had no influence over randomisation which was carried out by an external agency (allocations were obtained by telephone).

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

High risk

357 women consented to participation and were randomised (241 in intervention groups and 116 controls). There was considerable loss to follow‐up and deviations from protocol. 19.5% of intervention women received no intervention.  32.8% did not complete the first follow‐up interview at 28‐34 weeks, and an additional 9% of the women did not have this interview until after the birth of the baby and data were therefore not included in the analysis (206 followed up at interview one and 181 available at the postpartum follow‐up). Loss was balanced across groups but this loss to follow‐up and the large number of women not receiving the allocated intervention means that results are difficult to interpret.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

This thesis concentrated on only a limited part of the overall research project. The large number of analyses means that some significant results may have occurred by chance.

Other bias

Unclear risk

There was little information on some aspects of the trial design.  We are not aware that other results from this trial have been published.

Groups appeared similar at baseline.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Participants and staff were aware of group assignment.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Participants and staff were aware of group assignment. Knowledge of treatment group may have affected reporting of outcomes.

Olds 2004

Methods

RCT, 3‐arm trial, individual randomisation.

Participants

Low‐income, pregnant  women with no previous live births referred to antenatal clinic in Denver (n = 735) were included in this study. These women were either qualified for Medicaid or had no private insurance.  

Setting: 21 public and private healthcare settings in Denver, Colorado USA 1994‐5.

Inclusion criteria: low‐income women with no previous live births and qualified for Medicaid or had no private medical insurance.

Interventions

Home visits were provided from pregnancy through to child age 2 years. The home‐visiting program had 3 broad goals, (1) to improve maternal and fetal health during pregnancy by helping women improve their health‐related behaviours; (2) to improve children’s health and development by helping parents provide more competent care; and (3) to enhance mothers’ personal development by promoting planning of future pregnancies and  helping women continue their education and find work. The visitors helped women accomplish these goals by promoting the adaptive behaviours specified above, by helping them improve their relationships with key family members and friends (especially their mothers and boyfriends), and by promoting women’s use of health and human services. Nurse home visitors were required to have a degree and experience in community or maternal and child health nursing, whereas  para‐professionals were expected to have a high school education, no college preparation in the helping professions, and strong people skills.

Women  were randomised into 3 groups: Women in treatment  1  (n = 255)  were provided with free developmental screening and referral for their children at 6, 12, 15, 21, and 24 months of age. Women in treatment 2 (n = 245) were provided with the screening offered in treatment 1 plus para‐professional  home visiting during pregnancy and the child’s first 2 years of life. Women in treatment 3 (n = 235) were provided with the screening offered in treatment 1 plus nurse home visiting during pregnancy and the child's first 2 years.

Outcomes

Outcomes consisted of maternal reports of subsequent pregnancies, participation in education and work, use of welfare, marriage, cohabitation, experience of domestic violence, mental health, substance use, and sense of mastery; observations of mother‐child interaction and the home environment; tests of children’s language and executive functioning; and mothers’ reports of children’s externalising behaviour problems.

A large number of outcomes were reported in this study where follow‐up continued into late childhood. The paper relating to the follow‐up when the child was four years old collected data relating to child development, subsequent pregnancies, drug and alcohol use and episodes of DV during previous 6 months and since the child was 2 years (i.e. 3.5 years and 2‐4 years postpartum).

Notes

The data reported in this review were from a paper reporting a follow‐up study of mothers and children in their homes near the  child’s fourth birthday, 2 years after the end of the program.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Stratified randomisation by computer by external operations office.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

External randomisation service.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

735 women randomised and 695 followed up at 4 years. There were missing data for some variables.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

It was not clear that all outcomes had been prespecified before the onset of the study. The study resulted in multiple publications.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Groups appeared comparable at baseline and follow‐up rates were relatively high.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Women and staff were aware of treatment group.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

It was reported that follow‐up data were collected by investigators who were blind to group assignments.

Sharps 2013

Methods

Study described as multi‐stage, longitudinal and randomised. Mixed‐methods trial. An urban sample of women was individually randomised to treatment groups (n = 92); 12 rural county health departments were randomised by site, 6 to treatment and 6 to placebo (cluster‐randomisation, n = 147).

Participants

Participants were English speaking women, 31 weeks’ gestation and higher reporting abuse within the last 12 months, those registered in health department perinatal home visitation programs.

Interventions

The usual care (UC) group received the standard home visitation (HV) and the Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation Program (DOVE) was the intervention.DOVE intervention group received the standard HV in addition to the DOVE IPV intervention. Women in the DOVE intervention group received 3 prenatal and 3 postnatal DOVE sessions in addition to their HV protocols.

Outcomes

Recruitment rate and retention rate.

Notes

None of these outcomes are relevant to our review but future studies may report our primary and secondary outcomes.

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Randomised. Sequence generation not described.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Unclear risk

Unclear risk. Allocation concealment not described.

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

A total of 339 abused pregnant women were eligible for randomisation; 42 women refused, and 239 women were randomly assigned (124 DOVE; 115 usual care), resulting in a 71% recruitment rate. Retention rates from baseline included 93% at delivery, 80% at 3 months, 76% at 6 months, and 72% at 12 months.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

High risk

No original outcome is reported in this publication.

Other bias

Unclear risk

Unknown.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not clear, blinding not mentioned.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

Not clear, blinding not mentioned.

Tiwari 2005

Methods

RCT. 2‐arm trial with individual randomisation.

Participants

Setting: public hospital in Hong Kong, May 2002–June 2003.

Inclusion criteria: 110 women identified as abused by intimate partner. Pregnant women over 18 and less than 30 weeks’ gestation attending for first antenatal visit. Women had “answered ‘yes’ to being physically or emotionally abused by someone or forced to have sexual activities within the last year” (Abuse Assessment Screen).

Exclusion criteria: no reported abuse or abused by someone other than their partner.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: 55 women (51 followed up) Intervention based on empowerment and empathic understanding. The aim of the intervention was to enhance independence and control. In a 30‐minute interview with a midwife researcher women were advised on safety and problem solving (the intervention was tailored for use with Chinese women). Women were also given a brochure (it was not clear whether this intervention was in addition to standard care.

Control/Comparison intervention: 55 women (all followed up). Standard care. Women were given written information about community resources to support abused women.

Outcomes

Conflict Tactics scale (CTS) mean scores (with scores for minor and severe physical violence and psychological and sexual abuse); General Health scores; EPDS; and satisfaction with intervention. Women were followed up by telephone interview at 6 weeks postpartum.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

The allocation schedule was generated by a computer.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocation was “concealed in consecutively numbered sealed envelopes” by a researcher not involved in the study.   

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

110 women were randomised (55 in each group). 4 women were lost to follow‐up and it was stated that an intention‐to‐treat analysis was carried out although it was not clear what this meant.

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Assessment from published study report.                            

Other bias

Low risk

No other sources of bias identified. There did appear to be differences between groups at baseline but  it is not clear whether or to what extent baseline differences influenced results.   

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Women and care providers would not be blind to randomisation group.

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Low risk

It was stated that outcome assessment was carried out by researchers unaware of allocation and that women did not reveal their group until the end of the follow‐up interview.

Zlotnick 2011

Methods

RCT. 2 arms with individual randomisation.

Participants

Women attending for prenatal care were recruited from 2 primary care clinics and a private clinic in Rhode Island (USA).

Inclusion criteria: 54 pregnant women aged between 18 and 40 years who screened positive for recent (past year) DV on the Revised Conflict Tactics Scale. (Gestational age at recruitment not clear.)

Exclusion criteria: women with a current affective disorder, post‐traumatic stress disorder or current substance abuse were excluded and referred for appropriate treatment.

Interventions

Experimental intervention: (28 women randomised.) an intervention based on principles of interpersonal psychotherapy which aimed to enhance social support as a means of reducing depression, encouraging service use and reducing partner violence. The intervention also included empowerment and stabilisation components. The intervention involved four 60‐minute individual, scripted sessions during pregnancy and a booster session within 2 weeks of the birth; delivered by 2 trained staff.

Control/Comparison intervention: (26 women randomised.) usual medical care which included educational material and list of resources for DV.

Women in both groups received financial compensation for completing assessments.

Outcomes

Assessed at baseline, 5‐6 weeks after recruitment, 2 weeks after the birth and 3 months postpartum.

Physical, sexual and psychological attacks measured on Revised Conflict Tactic scale (at baseline and then since last assessment).

Major depressive disorder (assessed on Longitudinal Interval Follow‐up Examination (LIFE)).

Postnatal depression score on EPDS.

Post traumatic stress (on Davidson Trauma scale).

History of trauma.

Notes

Risk of bias

Bias

Authors' judgement

Support for judgement

Random sequence generation (selection bias)

Low risk

Computer‐generated schedule.

Allocation concealment (selection bias)

Low risk

Allocations concealed in consecutively numbered, sealed envelopes; allocation was by an investigator blind to baseline assessments. 

Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

54 women were randomised and there were outcome data for 46 (85%). Information on women lost to follow‐up was not provided. It was stated that analyses were by intention‐to‐treat.                                                  

Selective reporting (reporting bias)

Unclear risk

Assessment from published study reports.          

Other bias

Low risk

No other bias is apparent.

Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes

High risk

Blinding women, staff providing care and staff delivering the intervention to this type of intervention is not feasible. It is not clear how outcome data were collected

Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
All outcomes

Unclear risk

It is not clear how outcome data were collected.

DV: domestic violence
EPDS: Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale
IPV: intimate partner violence
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]

Study

Reason for exclusion

Armstrong 1999

The population in this study were not pregnant women.This was a trial examining an intervention in the postnatal period. There was no intervention in pregnancy and women were not recruited until after the birth. The intervention was delivered by child health nurses who offered weekly visits to support mothers and enhance parenting confidence with advice on child development and behaviour and facilitate access to other services. Individually tailored to family circumstances.

Bair‐Merritt 2010

Women recruited to this study were not pregnant. The trial examined early childhood home visits to improve family functioning and reduce child maltreatment. Para‐professionals gave advice on child development and parenting and offered support. The first visit was scheduled within a week of the birth and visits were thereafter scheduled weekly at first then tapering off for up to 3 years (mean of 13 visits in first year).

Bhandari 2012

This study used samples from RCT study of Domestic Violence Enhanced Home Visitation (DOVE) to conduct a qualitative study. Reported depression scores are based on correlation with relationship with mother. This study does not fit with our review objectives.

Blackmore 2006

This study examined whether an antenatal health assessment form identified women with risk factors for postnatal depression (including DV). There was no intervention to prevent or reduce IPV.

Bullock 2009

This study had an DV component but the objective did not meet this review criteria as it was looking into the effect of intervention on smoking cessation and DV reported as a part of secondary outcome.

Eddy 2008

Target populations were not pregnant women. They were facilitators and trainers from various countries (n = 21).

Janssen 2003

This is a descriptive population based study with important findings on the effect of DV on pregnancy outcome. However, it is not a RCT.

Janssen 2011

This was a proposal for a study reported in a trial registration; the planned trial did not take place.

Kataoka 2010

This study did not examine interventions to prevent IPV rather it compared 2 different methods of increasing disclosure about DV.

Koziol‐McLain 2010

Women in this study were not pregnant. Participants included 399 English‐speaking women aged 16 years and older who referred to emergency department,

Lipsky 2003

This cohort study investigates the effect of police report on pregnancy outcome of women suffering DV.

Macy 2007

This was a longitudinal study with no randomisation and blinding.

Marcenko 1994

Intervention involved consultation pertaining to DV prevention but none of the our priori outcome of interest was reported.

McFarlane 1996

This study was not a RCT.

Miller 2011

The participants in this study were women attending family planning clinics; the women were not pregnant. The study was looking at reproductive coercion.

Parker 1999

This was not a RCT.

Quinlivan 2003

Women were recruited to this study during pregnancy but were not randomised until after delivery and the intervention did not start until the postnatal period. The intervention was a postnatal home‐visiting service by nurse‐midwives aimed at “reducing adverse neonatal outcomes and in improving knowledge about contraception, vaccination schedules, and breastfeeding in teenage mothers younger than age 18 years” Structured home visits at 1, and 2 weeks and 1, 2, 4 and 6 months after the birth. Each visit lasted  1‐4 hours. Content of visits included infant feeding advice and support, information on vaccinations and to facilitate attendance for vaccinations, discussion of mood disorders and information on parenting. Follow‐up of any issues (which could include violence) raised at 2 months postpartum, discussion of issues re drugs and alcohol and advice on contraception.

Taft 2009a

The women recruited to this study were not all pregnant. The sample included women who were pregnant, who had a child under 5 or who otherwise were at high risk of IPV.

Women in the intervention arm received up to 12 months support from trained and supported non‐professional mentor mothers. Women in the intervention arm received up to 12 months support from a trained mentor. (No separate breakdown for pregnant women experiencing DV).

DV: domestic violence
IPV: intimate partner violence
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]

Loree 2008

Methods

RCT.

Participants

Participants were adolescent couples; women were pregnant at recruitment.

Interventions

A counselling intervention was compared with routine care.

Outcomes

Outcomes were episodes of violence within couples. It was not clear whether women or their partners were the victims of the violence; authors report that much of the violence was reciprocal.

Notes

We have contacted the authors to see if we can obtain data for women only. [email protected] (author contacted 20th June 2012).

RCT: randomised controlled trial

Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]

Feder 2013

Trial name or title

Enhanced Nurse Home Visitation Program To Prevent Intimate Partner Violence

Methods

RCT.

Participants

Women during pregnancy and postpartum. 250 women referred to the Multnomah County Health Department will be randomised to the experimental (NFP plus ECI) or control condition (NFP) and visited according to the regular NFP schedule during pregnancy and until the infant is 24 months old.

Interventions

Enhanced Nurse Home Visitation Program To Prevent Intimate Partner Violence. It is based on a choice or empowerment model whereby women can choose among interventions related to her goal for her current intimate relationship.The intervention concentrated on the prenatal and immediate (first 6 months) postpartum period with regular IPV, emotional abuse and controlling behaviour assessments throughout the study period.

Outcomes

Baseline and outcome measurement (CTS2, WEB, TPMI, depression ‐ Edinburgh, & parenting stress), screened at 3 months before delivery, 9 months and 21 months postpartum.

Starting date

January 2007 start date. End date October 2010.

Contact information

Principal Investigator: Lynette F Feder, PhD University of Central Florida, [email protected]
Principal Investigator: Phyllis Niolin, PhD Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Notes

We have been unable to find any additional reports on this trial to confirm that the study has been completed. We emailed the author on 18/8/2014, but we have had no reply.

Krishnan 2012

Trial name or title

The Dil Mil trial

Methods

RCT using a parallel comparison.

Participants

Young married pregnant women (18 to 30 years old) with a history of domestic violence in the first or second trimester of pregnancy (daughter‐in‐laws (DILs) and their mother‐in‐laws' (MILs).

Interventions

Intervention consists of 2 half‐day group sessions with DILs, 5 half‐day group sessions with MILs, and 1 joint half‐day session with DILs and MILs.

Outcomes

Domestic violence incidence, related health outcomes (perceived quality of life, psychosocial status, and maternal and infant health), knowledge of links between GBV and health, gender‐equitable attitudes, relationship with DILs (communication social support, support of freedom of movement), reduction in GBV perpetration, resistance to GBV inflicted by son, knowledge of safety and the links between GBV and health, gender‐equitable attitudes, decision‐making skills, freedom of movement, resistance to GBV by husband.

Starting date

Starting date unclear.

Contact information

Suneeta Krishnan, [email protected].

Notes

This study is at recruitment stage. No results were available at the time of review update.

Sharma 2013

Trial name or title

Impact of Women's Empowerment Program for Abused Pregnant Women

Methods

RCT with parallel assignment.

Participants

Abused pregnant women aged 18 to 35 years of age with a history of suffering from physical abuse.

Interventions

Behavioural intervention aiming to empower women. The one‐our intervention, delivered over a 11‐week period, consisted of an empowerment and additional components adapted from freedom program run to support domestic abused women. The control arm received standard care, which was routine check ups with care provided by healthcare professionals.

Outcomes

Rate of episode of domestic violence, health status and safety behaviour.

Starting date

January 2013. Completion August 2013 with June 2013 final data collection date for primary outcome measure.

Contact information

Neha Sharma, PhD, Macmillan research group UK. (No email published on protocol.)

Notes

It is unclear whether this trial has been completed.

Taft 2012

Trial name or title

MOVE, a cluster‐randomised trial of screening and referral in primary health care

Methods

A cluster‐randomised trial.

Participants

Nurses and pregnant mothers.

Interventions

IPV screening.

Outcomes

1. For nurses: whether nurses inquire about IPV among their client population, referring women experiencing IPV to services, Inquire about the safety of women and children in the relationship.

2. For pregnant women:whether women are asked about IPV, disclose/discuss any abuse and are satisfied with the quality of care and support they receive.

3. Proportion of MCH clients who have ever, or who are currently, experiencing IPV and those abused when pregnant.

Starting date

Start and completion dates unclear.

Contact information

Angela J Taft ([email protected])

Notes

This report is a protocol for the MOVE, a cluster‐randomised trial of screening and referral in primary health care.

Temmerman 2010

Trial name or title

Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy, a Perinatal Care Intervention Study (MOM)

Methods

A single‐blind randomised controlled trial with parallel assignment.

Participants

Pregnant victims of partner violence (n = 150)

Interventions

Perinatal Care Intervention study that looks into the Impact of a resource card. The intervention group will receive an envelope with a gift voucher and a resource card (wallet size card with on the one side safety measures and on the other side contact details of resources for violence).The control group will receive the same envelope with a gift voucher and a letter of thanks.

Outcomes

Evolution of partner violence, help‐seeking behaviour of the pregnant victims of partner violence.

Starting date

June 2010. Estimated completion date March 2014.

Contact information

An‐Sofie Van Parys, Universiteit Gent, [email protected]

Notes

The contact author was emailed on 21/08/2014; data are not yet available because women are still being interviewed. Data may be available for next update.

CTS: Conflict Tactics Scale
IPV: intimate partner violence
RCT: randomised controlled trial

Data and analyses

Open in table viewer
Comparison 1. Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy Show forest plot

1

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.25, 1.02]

Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy.

2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

271

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.35, 1.04]

Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum.

3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale) Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.20 [‐10.74, 19.14]

Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

4.1 Psychological abuse

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.45, ‐0.17]

4.2 Minor physical violence score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐0.82, ‐0.10]

4.3 Severe physical violence score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.28, 0.44]

4.4 Sexual abuse score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.24, 0.06]

5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score) Show forest plot

1

191

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.31, 0.07]

Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score).

6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum) Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.43, 0.88]

Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum).

7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

181

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.23, 1.21]

Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum.

8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.04, 4.31]

Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy.

9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating) Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐0.97, 0.05]

Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating).

10 Depression scores (after the intervention) during pregnancy

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum.

11.1 Empowerment training

1

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.20, 0.75]

11.2 Psychological therapy intervention

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.38, 5.18]

12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.88 [‐5.24, 1.48]

Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum.

13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum Show forest plot

1

182

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.37, 1.98]

Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum.

14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum Show forest plot

1

182

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.65 [‐2.41, 1.11]

Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum.

15 Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Stillbirth

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Neonatal death

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Miscarriage (up to 20 weeks)

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Maternal mortality

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Antepartum haemorrhage

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22 Placental abruption

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23 Mean infant birthweight (g) Show forest plot

1

306

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

41.0 [‐106.19, 188.19]

Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 23 Mean infant birthweight (g).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 23 Mean infant birthweight (g).

24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.41, 1.32]

Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies.

25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation) Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.40, 1.20]

Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation).

26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

1

306

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.33, 2.47]

Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks).

27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours Show forest plot

1

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.6 [1.41, 4.79]

Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours.

28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy Show forest plot

1

191

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.06 [‐3.34, ‐0.78]

Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy.

29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.04, 0.66]

Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers.

30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum Show forest plot

1

735

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.60, 1.08]

Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum.

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

'Risk of bias' graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

'Risk of bias' summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.6

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.7

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.8

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.9

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.11

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.12

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.13

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.14

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 23 Mean infant birthweight (g).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.23

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 23 Mean infant birthweight (g).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.24

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.25

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks).
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.26

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks).

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.27

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.28

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.29

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers.

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.30

Comparison 1 Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care, Outcome 30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum.

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women

Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women

Patient or population: all pregnant women
Settings: three trials conducted in the USA
Intervention: any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care

Outcomes

Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI)

Relative effect
(95% CI)

No of Participants
(studies)

Quality of the evidence
(GRADE)

Comments

Assumed risk

Corresponding risk

Control

Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care

Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy

Study population

RR 0.5
(0.25 to 1.02)

220
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

182 per 1000

91 per 1000
(45 to 185)

Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum

Study population

RR 0.6
(0.35 to 1.04)

271
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,2

212 per 1000

127 per 1000
(74 to 220)

Partner abuse: abuse score in the first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Score*) The CTS is a 19‐item self‐report scale listing behaviours that the respondent’s partner might use in conflicts. Women report the frequency of partner behaviours over the past year on a 7‐point scale where 0 = never and 6 = 20 or more times.

The mean partner abuse: abuse score in the first 3 months postpartum in the intervention groups was
4.2 higher
(10.74 lower to 19.14 higher)

46
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low1,3

Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current Abuse Score**)

The Current abuse score consists of 2 scales: 1) Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) and 2) Prenatal Psychosocial Profile (PPP).

The mean partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (current abuse score) in the intervention groups was
0.12 lower
(0.31 lower to 0.07 higher)

191
(1 study)

⊕⊝⊝⊝
very low4,5

Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum)

Study population

RR 0.62
(0.43 to 0.88)

306
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊕⊝
moderate1

378 per 1000

234 per 1000
(163 to 333)

Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies

Study population

RR 0.74
(0.41 to 1.32)

306
(1 study)

⊕⊕⊝⊝
low1,6

154 per 1000

114 per 1000
(63 to 203)

*The Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS) tool was used to for screening. Respondents who answered ‘yes’ to being physically or emotionally hurt by someone or forced to have sexual activities within the last year were considered abused. These women, who responded "Yes" to AAS tool, were administered the Conflict Tactics Score (CTS).
**The AAS contains 4 questions on emotional, physical, and sexual abuse at any time during the woman’s life, within the previous year and during pregnancy. The severity of physical violence is classified from levels 1 to 5: level 1 = slapping to level 5 = wounding with a weapon. The PPP is a 44‐item Likert‐type scale that measures stress, social support from partner and from others and self‐esteem during pregnancy. Each 11 item sub‐scale asks women to rate their stress from no stress (1) to severe stress (4).

RR: risk ratio; CI: confidence interval

GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 All studies contributing data had design limitations.
2 Wide confidence crossing the line of no effect and small sample size.
3 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no difference and small sample size.
4 All studies contributing data has serious design limitations.
5 Estimate based on small sample size.
6 Wide confidence interval crossing the line of no effect.

Figuras y tablas -
Summary of findings for the main comparison. Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women
Comparison 1. Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Partner abuse: episodes during pregnancy Show forest plot

1

220

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.5 [0.25, 1.02]

2 Partner abuse: episodes during the first 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

271

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.60 [0.35, 1.04]

3 Partner abuse: abuse score first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale) Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

4.20 [‐10.74, 19.14]

4 Partner abuse: abuse score in first 3 months postpartum (Conflict Tactics Scale) Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

4.1 Psychological abuse

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.81 [‐1.45, ‐0.17]

4.2 Minor physical violence score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐0.82, ‐0.10]

4.3 Severe physical violence score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.08 [‐0.28, 0.44]

4.4 Sexual abuse score

1

106

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.09 [‐0.24, 0.06]

5 Partner abuse in the first 3 months postpartum (Current abuse score) Show forest plot

1

191

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.12 [‐0.31, 0.07]

6 Partner abuse: total episodes at final study assessment (pregnancy and up to 10 weeks postpartum) Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.62 [0.43, 0.88]

7 Partner violence at 7‐8 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

181

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.53 [0.23, 1.21]

8 Women with depression (after the intervention) during pregnancy Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.42 [0.04, 4.31]

9 Mean Depression Episodes, Psychiatric Status Rating) Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.46 [‐0.97, 0.05]

10 Depression scores (after the intervention) during pregnancy

0

0

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

11 Women with depression up to 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

11.1 Empowerment training

1

106

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.39 [0.20, 0.75]

11.2 Psychological therapy intervention

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.38, 5.18]

12 Depression scores up to 3 months postpartum Show forest plot

1

46

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐1.88 [‐5.24, 1.48]

13 Women with depression up to 1 year postpartum Show forest plot

1

182

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.85 [0.37, 1.98]

14 Depression scores up to 1 year postpartum Show forest plot

1

182

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐0.65 [‐2.41, 1.11]

15 Apgar score less than 7 at 1 minute

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

16 Apgar score less than 7 at 5 minutes

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

17 Stillbirth

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

18 Neonatal death

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

19 Miscarriage (up to 20 weeks)

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

20 Maternal mortality

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

21 Antepartum haemorrhage

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

22 Placental abruption

0

0

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

23 Mean infant birthweight (g) Show forest plot

1

306

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

41.0 [‐106.19, 188.19]

24 Number of low‐birthweight (< 2500 g) babies Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.74 [0.41, 1.32]

25 Preterm labour (before 37 weeks' gestation) Show forest plot

1

306

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.69 [0.40, 1.20]

26 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Mean gestational age at birth (weeks) Show forest plot

1

306

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

1.40 [0.33, 2.47]

27 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women adopting safety behaviours Show forest plot

1

204

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

2.6 [1.41, 4.79]

28 (Non‐prespecified outcome) stress score in late pregnancy Show forest plot

1

191

Mean Difference (IV, Fixed, 95% CI)

‐2.06 [‐3.34, ‐0.78]

29 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Did not discuss abuse with care providers Show forest plot

1

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.17 [0.04, 0.66]

30 (Non‐prespecified outcome) Women reporting any domestic violence 2‐4 years postpartum Show forest plot

1

735

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Fixed, 95% CI)

0.81 [0.60, 1.08]

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. Any intervention to prevent violence (all interventions) versus standard care