At a glance

Intervention Screening delivered in hospital emergency departments seek to identify intimate partner violence (IPV) victimisation

Key populations Adult women presenting to hospital emergency departments

Outcomes studied Detection of violence, screening and support; gender-based violence; health; behaviours; relationships; wellbeing and emotions; social and material support

Impact of the intervention Of the 18 studies, nine outcomes received an effectiveness rating on our Effectiveness Estimate Tool

Australian Evidence 1 study presented findings from Australia and no studies reported on the experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

Risk of bias Of the studies with available quantitative data, we rated four as moderate risk of bias, six moderate-high risk of bias, three as high risk of bias on the Risk of Bias Tool

Intervention description

What are the key characteristics of the intervention?

Screening interventions seek to identify IPV victimisation (either current or past) in adult women presenting to emergency departments. Screening generally involves asking a series of questions about IPV or safety to ascertain whether women are experiencing violence.

Screening may involve “universal” or “routine” questioning, which can be offered to all adult women, or women of childbearing age (e.g. from 16 to 45 years), presenting to the emergency department for any reason. Alternatively, some approaches adopt “targeted” or “case-finding” identification that seeks to detect women who present with certain symptoms, specific injuries (such as non-fatal strangulation injuries), suicidality, certain demographic characteristics, or known risk factors for IPV (such as pregnancy).

Screening for IPV in emergency departments varies in modality. It is generally conducted face-to-face and is administered verbally by health professionals using an instrument with pre-specified questions. Some screening may also be self-administered by women themselves, via a computer or printed written survey. Generally, screening occurs in an examination room, as opposed to triage or waiting area. Women are screened privately rather than in the presence of the people who accompanied them to the emergency department.

Screening may be conducted by validated screening instruments or general interviewing. The screening instruments generally include a preamble and ask the woman to answer the questions in relation to a certain time period. Although others exist, the instruments identified in this review include:

• Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST), which contains eight questions about emotional, physical and sexual violence in the previous year
• Partner Violence Screen (PVS), which contains three questions about physical violence and personal safety in the previous year
• Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool (OVAT), which contains four questions about current IPV
• Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS), which contains five questions about IPV and sexual violence, both currently and over the lifetime
• Domestic Violence Identification Tool (DVIT), which contains six questions about physical and emotional violence.

Some screening interventions may only aim to identify IPV, while others may also offer additional information or support based on a positive disclosure of violence. Health provider responses to a positive screening result include conducting further risk assessments (e.g. of homicide, suicide, or danger to children), offering safety planning, referral to specialist services, education, or immediate social work care from the hospital.

Implementation generally involves health provider training support staff to deliver the IPV screening. Staff may be provided with materials such as identification and response protocols, and clinical supports such as help to navigate referral pathways, referral cards, display of visual tools, a body map to document injuries, pocket cards with question prompts, and specialist documentation for recording IPV assessments. In Australia, routine IPV screening in emergency departments is mandated in the Northern Territory and is currently in the second phase of pilot testing in New South Wales.

What does the intervention involve?

Where is the intervention set? Emergency departments, both adult and paediatric

How is the intervention delivered? Primarily face-to-face by emergency department nurses or physicians. Sometimes also via computer, paper-based survey, or non-verbal cue cards

How frequently is the intervention delivered? Women are usually screened once for IPV in a brief, one-off interaction (often ranging between 3 to 12 minutes) and a secondary screening may occur to establish severe risk

What resources and costs are involved? No studies commented on the costs associated with the intervention

Theory of change

How is the intervention designed or theorised to work?

Screening interventions are part of a concerted effort to identify IPV among women who have presented to emergency departments. Women who are currently experiencing IPV may present to the emergency department with complaints, symptoms or injuries related to IPV, and may seek support and services in emergency department settings.

Screening interventions in the emergency department represents a type of systems-based approach recommended by the World Health Organization for sustained change in health practice in relation to violence against women.

The rationale for screening interventions centres on the recognition of the emergency departments as a unique, critical point of access to women, coupled with widespread missed opportunities to identify victimisation and support women in a safe and confidential environment.

Emergency department screening and response interventions were developed to address low IPV detection rates, underscored by a lack of relevant policy to guide and support health providers to manage positive IPV disclosures.

By screening for IPV, victims and survivors may disclose experiences of current or past violence, and in turn, be offered information or support, which may otherwise remain undetected in emergency department settings.

Impact

This section speaks to the effectiveness of the studies.

The outcomes measured by the included studies are: detection of violence, screening and support (e.g. disclosures and identification for IPV, discussions and referral to support), gender-based violence (e.g. IPV exposure), behaviours (e.g. safety self-efficacy), social and material support (e.g. use of specialist resources), health (e.g. depression, PTSD, substance use), and wellbeing and emotions (e.g. quality of life).

Fourteen primary studies had available quantitative data and were assessed for risk of bias on the ANROWS-IRIS tool. Of these, four received a rating of moderate risk of bias, six received a rating of moderate-high, three received a rating of high, and one study was not able to be rated. Of the four systematic reviews, one contained a meta-analysis which was critically appraised on the AMSTAR 2 tool, and received a rating of high confidence.

Overall, four moderate-bias primary studies and one high-quality systematic review with meta-analysis were used for the effectiveness estimates. The outcomes that these studies measured are: identification of IPV, IPV exposure, safety behaviours, referral to IPV services, discussion about IPV, receipt of IPV services, use of specialist resources, disclosure of IPV, and documentation of IPV.

Overall effectiveness of the intervention

The table below shows the effectiveness of the intervention.

✅ = Most systematic reviews and studies show effectiveness
🟢 = Most studies show effectiveness
🟨 = Most systematic reviews and studies show no effect
🟡 = Most studies show no effect
⛔ = Potentially harmful
🔵 = Mixed evidence
✖ = Insufficient causal evidence
🕓 = Not yet rated

Effectiveness rating	Outcome	Description
	Identification of IPV	One high-quality systematic review with a meta-analysis examined the effect of screening on the identification of IPV by type of healthcare setting. Findings showed the intervention was effective for identifying IPV compared to usual care, based on the combined results of three primary studies with 2,608 participants.
	IPV exposure	One randomised controlled trial found a brief IPV screening intervention, when compared to usual emergency department care, did not significantly reduce self-reported IPV exposure at 3-month follow-up.
	Disclosure of IPV	One randomised controlled trial examined the effect of computer-based screening on the rates of disclosure of IPV in two settings. In both an urban and suburban emergency department, the rates of women’s disclosure of IPV to the health care provider was higher following the computer-based screening intervention than in usual emergency department care.
	Documentation of IPV	One quasi-experimental study found that computer-based screening resulted in greater rates of physician chart documentation of IPV when compared to usual emergency department care (9.5% of patients versus 0.6%, respectively).
	Discussion about IPV	One randomised controlled trial examined the effect of computer-based screening on the rates of discussions about IPV in two settings, an urban emergency department and a suburban emergency department. In both settings, rates of discussion about IPV were higher in the treatment group than in the usual care group. Among the subset of women who disclosed IPV, there was a significantly higher likelihood of IPV discussions in the intervention group, compared to the usual care group, across both urban and suburban emergency departments.
	Safety behaviours	One randomised controlled trial found no increase in women’s use of safety behaviours after the brief IPV screening intervention, compared with women receiving usual emergency department care during the 3-month follow-up.
	Referral to IPV services	One quasi-experimental study found that referral to social work for IPV services was higher among those who received the computer-based screening intervention compared to usual emergency department care. The study observed a 9.7% difference immediately following the intervention.
	Receipt of IPV services	Two studies examined the effect computer-based screening on the rates of IPV services provided during the emergency department visit. One randomised controlled trial found that the rates of women who received IPV services (defined as a safety assessment, counselling, or referral to specialist resources) were higher among those who received the computer-based screening than usual emergency department care. One quasi-experimental study found that a higher rate of women received IPV services (defined as social work care) among those screened by the computer-based intervention compared to usual care.
	Use of specialist resources	One randomised controlled trial found no difference between women’s use of formal or informal specialist family violence resources in the 3 months following the brief IPV screening intervention or usual emergency department care.

Key populations

Has the impact of this intervention been tested with certain key populations?

This Intervention Review assessed the impact of screening interventions to identify IPV victimisation in women presenting to emergency departments. The intervention was not designed for any specific cultural or ethnic groups, or for people with physical or mental disabilities or health conditions. Women were generally English-speaking, ranging in age from 15 to 65 years, and presented for emergency care with a non-urgent complaint.

Some studies did not test screening interventions for certain women presenting to the emergency departments. For example, common exclusion criteria included women who:

• were acutely ill or injured to participate, which required them to receive immediate medical treatment or precluded them from providing informed consent
• could not be separated from individuals who accompanied them to the emergency department
• were unable to speak and read English
• had impaired mental status, were disorientated or overtly experiencing psychosis.

The table below gives an overview of whether or not the intervention was examined with some key populations. The inclusion of these populations was guided by the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032 and The Australian National Research Agenda to End Violence against Women and Children 2023–2028.

🔴 = no studies
🟡 = at least 1 study mentions that population, but effectiveness was not tested with that population
🟢 = at least 1 study tests effectiveness with the population

Population	What do we know about this group?	Degree of knowledge
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities	0 studies
Culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups	4 studies included women from CALD backgrounds, specifically African American and Māori women
Sexuality and gender diverse / LGBTIQA+	0 studies
Specific age groups (including older people, children and young people)	4 studies included adolescents aged 15–16 years and over
Migrants and refugees	0 studies
People with disability	0 studies

Key considerations

This section summarises factors that may contribute to study results, factors that may be considered to facilitate better outcomes, and the transferability of the intervention to an Australian context.

What do we know about the intervention in Australia?

• Of the 14 primary studies, seven presented findings from the United States, three from Canada, two from New Zealand, and one each from Australia and Iceland.
• Only one Australian study tested a screening intervention with adult women presenting to the emergency department. Further research is required to determine effectiveness and acceptability in an Australian context. The Northern Territory was the first jurisdiction to mandate IPV screening in emergency departments, while in New South Wales, it is currently at the pilot phase with an initial feasibility study reporting low rates of screening among eligible women.

What should Australian stakeholders consider?

Available evidence considerations:

• Participant exclusion criteria: Many studies had certain criteria for the women able to participate. That is, they often excluded people who did not speak English, were intoxicated, had a high-priority injury, or displayed psychological symptoms (e.g. psychosis). Importantly, this limits the findings of this review to women who were in a position to participate in the studies and exclude women at the highest risk of IPV and homicide. Future studies should seek to develop screening interventions for IPV among these cohorts.

• Limited impact evaluations: Many publications related to screening for IPV in emergency departments focus on protocol development, feasibility, validating tools, and testing diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity or specificity of screening instruments (see the Additional Sources section). The work of these implementation papers is important to ensuring tools are accurate, reliable, and can help women experiencing IPV. This intervention review identified a need to continue building the impact evaluation evidence base, with more impact evaluations using experimental methods required to determine the effectiveness of screening interventions in emergency departments when compared to usual care or alternative approaches.
• Qualitative evidence: Recent qualitative studies have examined staff experiences of delivering interventions in the emergency department and detailed their perceptions of barriers and enablers to screening (see Additional Evidence). Additionally, qualitative research has been conducted with women to understand their perspectives and lived experiences of screening interventions, and importantly, the findings have been used to inform the development of best practice models.
• Risk of bias in evidence: Although many of the critically appraised studies were randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies, they tended to be rated as moderate-high on the ANROWS-IRIS domains of selection bias and confounders. Very few studies examined equivalency between the intervention and control groups, and many studies did not draw from a sample that was representative of the target population (i.e. any women in emergency departments).

Implementation considerations:

• Staff training and support: Typically, screening interventions are expected to be incorporated into already demanding workloads for emergency department nurses and physicians, meaning staff face time pressures to deliver the intervention. While several implementation barriers emerged from included studies, the greatest emphasis was placed on health provider training and institutional supports as being critical to intervention success. Other implementation barriers included providers’ limited confidence, comfort or preparedness in delivering screening for IPV, lack of knowledge or adequate training. Further, staff may feel they are not equipped with the knowledge or skills to appropriately respond or support a woman who discloses IPV. Hospitals should consider training that is appropriate, intensive and accessible, and consider offering staff external education sessions and opportunities to engage in reflexive practice.
• Institutional support: Structural and environmental implementation barriers may exist, including a lack of private areas, resources or organisational buy-in. Emergency departments could adopt a systems-level model, quality assurance processes and implement institutional support.
• Mode of delivery and format of screening: The included studies were comprised of various screening modalities. It is possible that some women prefer computerised or self-administered screening interventions, as opposed to face-to-face screening, due to the privacy and confidentiality these approaches offer in making an IPV disclosure.
• Intervention length: Some of the included study authors acknowledged the time and workload constraints that affect implementation by testing brief screening interventions. Implementers and evaluators should explore dosage length in future studies to determine the appropriate time to administer screening interventions, particularly given the need for brevity in emergency department settings.
• Participatory approaches: Screening interventions may be co-designed with expert input from women with lived experience, local agencies and other relevant health providers. Implementers may consider engaging emergency department staff in revising and implementing screening for IPV through co-design to foster greater investment in change and collaboration.
• Language translation: Two of the studies administered the screening tools in both English and Spanish. There is potential for tools to be translated to overcome potential language barriers to screening for IPV.
• Address knowledge gaps for certain key populations: Appropriate and effective interventions are needed for women from certain key populations known to experience higher levels of IPV such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women; women from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; women who live in regional or remote locations; and women who suffer from suicidality, post-traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries.

Included studies

Characteristics of primary studies included in the Intervention Review

Study and location	Design	Intervention	Sample	Risk of bias rating
Anglin (2003)	Systematic review Type of analysis: Narrative synthesis Search period: 1980 to 2002	Screening interventions for IPV in emergency departments N included studies: 20 Included research design: No restrictions Countries: Any country	Adults and adolescents presenting to the emergency department, all genders	Detection of violence, screening and support
Choo et al. (2015)	Systematic review Type of analysis: Narrative synthesis Search period: 1990 to 2013	Screening and additional educational interventions for IPV in emergency departments N included studies: 3 v Included research design: Randomised controlled trials Countries: Any country	Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support; health
DeFehr (1997) Canada	Single group pre-post study Comparison: N/A Qualitative data: No	Routine screening protocol for identifying IPV, a 45-minute training for staff with instructions and tick sheets; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered resources and referral to social work Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by nurses and physicians Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 119 Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Fanslow et al. (1998; 1999) New Zealand	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual Qualitative data: No	A protocol for IPV screening of women when staff had “reasonable suspicion that abuse had taken place”, including staff training, questioning about physical and sexual violence, assessment of risk of homicide, suicide and danger to children; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered safety planning and referral to specialist services Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by medical, nursing and reception staff trained for 1 or 4 hours. Staff were provided with materials such as printed forms, checklists, a body map to document injuries, and referral cards Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 4,044 Adult women and girls aged 15 years and older presenting to the emergency department, 17% Māori	Detection of violence, screening and support
Furbee et al. (1998) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Active intervention, a pre-recorded taped questionnaire Qualitative data: No	A 9-item screening questionnaire for identifying IPV and a private interview Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by a single designated female physician Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 715 Adult women presenting to the emergency department, mean age 34 years	Detection of violence, screening and support
Glass et al. (2001) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Another active intervention, self-administered survey Qualitative data: No	An 18-item screening questionnaire for identifying IPV, called the Patient Satisfaction and Safety Survey (PSSS) Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by trained off-duty emergency department nurses in an examination room Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 3,455 Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Hoelle et al. (2014) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Active intervention Qualitative data: No	Two brief screening interventions for identifying IPV, including the 4-item Ongoing Violence Assessment Tool (OVAT) and a single-question instrument Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by trained health professionals Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 200 Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Koziol-McLain et al. (2010) New Zealand	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Treatment as usual (standard ED care) Qualitative data: No	A brief 3-item screening intervention for identifying IPV, based on the Partner Violence Screen (PVS) and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS), including risk assessment; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were asked a series of high-risk questions and offered safety planning and referral to the hospital social worker or specialist IPV services Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by trained health professionals, 3 minutes for screening only and 7 minutes for high-risk cases Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 344 Adult women, aged 16 years and over, presenting to the emergency department, median age 40 years, 37.6% Māori	Detection of violence, screening and support; gender-based violence; behaviours; social and material support
MacMillan et al. (2006) Canada	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Two active interventions: 1) self-completed screening; and 2) self-completed written screening Qualitative data: No	Brief screening for identifying IPV, based on two instruments: the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and the Partner Violence Screen (PVS); if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered usual care Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by trained health professionals Setting: Emergency departments, family practices and women’s health clinics Cost: Not reported	N = 2461 (n = 768 emergency department) Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Morrison et al. (2000) Canada	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: No treatment Qualitative data: No	Brief 5-item screening questionnaire for identifying IPV; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered specialist referrals, printed resources and an appointment with a social worker Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by a research assistant in a private examination room after triage Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Nelson et al. (2012); Wilbur et al. (2013)	Systematic review Type of analysis: Narrative synthesis Search period: 2002 to 2012	Screening interventions for IPV in various health settings N included studies: 15 (6 in emergency department settings) Included research design: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies with a control group Countries: United States only	Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support; health
O’Doherty et al. (2014; 2015)	Systematic review Type of analysis: Meta-analysis Search period: Database start date to 2012	Screening interventions for IPV in various health settings N included studies: 13 Included research design: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies with a control group Countries: Any country	Adult women presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support; health; social and material support; wellbeing and emotions
Olson et al. (1996) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual Qualitative data: No	A brief screening intervention, based on either a: 1) a medical chart modification, involving a stamp on patients’ medical chart with a question to remind physicians to enquire about IPV; or 2) a medical chart modification and a 1-hour educational lecture for ED staff with information on improving identification, treatment and referral options for IPV Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by medical professionals Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 2,717 Adult women and girls aged 15 years and older presenting to the emergency department, mean age 28.5 years	Detection of violence, screening and support
Power et al. (2007; 2011) Australia	Single group pre-post study Comparison: N/A Qualitative data: Yes	Domestic Violence Identification Tool, adapted brief 3-item screening intervention for identifying IPV; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered three options: 1) an informational pamphlet only; 2) information and referrals to specialist services; or 3) counselling with a social worker Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually by trained nurses Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 109 Adult women, over 16 years, presenting to the emergency department	Detection of violence, screening and support
Rhodes et al. (2002) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Treatment as usual Qualitative data: No	Adapted questions from the Partner Violence Screen (PVS) and the Abuse Assessment Screen (AAS), administered computer-based screening for identifying IPV, including a health and lifestyle risk assessment, with the screening results attached to the patient’s chart during their hospital visit to act as a prompt for staff; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered referral options Duration and format: Delivered individually via computer, 17 minutes on average to complete Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 470 Adults, all genders presenting to the emergency department, 69% female, 91% African American, average age 33 years	Detection of violence, screening and support
Rhodes et al. (2006) United States	Randomised controlled trial Comparison: Treatment as usual Qualitative data: No	Self-administered computer-based health and lifestyle risk assessment tool called Promote Health Survey, with the screening results attached to the patient’s chart during their hospital visit to act as a prompt for staff; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered usual care referral options Duration and format: Delivered individually via computer Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 1,281 Adult women presenting to the emergency department, average age 33.3 years, 60% African American	Detection of violence, screening and support
Svavarsdottir (2010) Iceland	Single group pre-post study Comparison: N/A Qualitative data: No	Self-administered written questionnaire for identifying IPV, based on the Woman Abuse Screening Tool (WAST) and an interview of 9 open-ended questions with a nurse, based on the Women Abuse: Screening and First Response. Evaluation Interview Frame for Nurses and Midwives, both instruments were translated from English to Icelandic Duration and format: Delivered face-to-face individually with nurses, with the self-completed questionnaire answered within 4–12 minutes, and interviews lasting between 10–54 minutes Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 101 Adult women presenting to the emergency department, mean age 38 years, 98% Icelandic	Detection of violence, screening and support; relationships; wellbeing and emotions
Trautman et al. (2007) United States	Quasi-experimental study Comparison: Active intervention, a self-administered computer-based health survey with no IPV-related questions Qualitative data: No	Partner Violence Screen (PVS), a self-administered computer-based health survey 4-items specific to identifying IPV, with a report attached to the patient’s medical record; if a positive IPV disclosure was received, women were offered a social work referral Duration and format: Delivered individually via computer, approximately 6 minutes Setting: Emergency department Cost: Not reported	N = 1,006 Adult women presenting to the emergency department, average age 33.3 years, 60% African American	Detection of violence, screening and support

References and further reading

Included studies

• Anglin, D., & Sachs, C. (2003). Preventive care in the emergency department: Screening for domestic violence in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 10(10), 1118–1127. https://doi.org/10.1197/S1069-6563(03)00371-3


• Choo, E. K., Gottlieb, A. S., DeLuca, M., Tape, C., Colwell, L., & Zlotnick, C. (2015). Systematic review of ED-based intimate partner violence intervention research. The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16(7), 1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.10.27586


• DeFehr, J. (1997). Domestic violence against women and the impact of routine screening in a hospital emergency department [Master’s dissertation, University of Manitoba]. University of Manitoba FGS – Electronic Theses and Practica. https://mspace.lib.umanitoba.ca/handle/1993/853


• Fanslow, J. L., Norton, R. N., & Robinson, E. M. (1999). One year follow-up of an emergency department protocol for abused women. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 23(4), 418–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.1999.tb01286.x


• Fanslow, J. L., Norton, R. N., Robinson, E. M., & Spinola, C. G. (1998). Outcome evaluation of an emergency department protocol of care on partner abuse.Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 22(5), 598–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842x.1998.tb01445.x


• Furbee, P. M., Sikora, R., Williams, J. M., & Derk, S. J. (1998). Comparison of domestic violence screening methods: A pilot study. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 31(4), 495–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0196-0644(98)70260-4


• Glass, N., Dearwater, S., & Campbell, J. (2001). Intimate partner violence screening and intervention: Data from eleven Pennsylvania and California community hospital emergency departments. Journal of Emergency Nursing, 27(2), 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1067/men.2001.114387


• Hoelle, R. M., Weeks, E., Sellers, S., & Carden, D. (2014). A comparison of two brief intimate partner violence screening tools in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine, 21(s1), S135–S136. https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.12365


• Houry, D., Kaslow, N. J., Kemball, R. S., McNutt, L. A., Cerulli, C., Straus, H., Rosenberg, E., Lu, C., & Rhodes, K. (2008). Does screening in the emergency department hurt or help victims of intimate partner violence? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 51(4), 433–442.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2007.11.019


• Koziol-McLain, J., Garrett, N., Fanslow, J., Hassall, I., Dobbs, T., Henare-Toka, T. A., & Lovell, V. (2010). A randomized controlled trial of a brief emergency department intimate partner violence screening intervention. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 56(4), 413–423.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.05.001


• MacMillan, H. L., Wathen, C. N., Jamieson, E., Boyle, M., McNutt, L.-A., Worster, A., Lent, B., Webb, M., & McMaster Violence Against Women Research Group. (2006). Approaches to screening for intimate partner violence in health care settings: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Medical Association, 296(5), 530–536. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.296.5.530


• Mancheno, C., Aumaier, B., & Murray, A. (2021). Screening for intimate partner violence in a pediatric ED: A quality improvement initiative. Pediatric Emergency Care, 37(12), E1110–E1115. https://doi.org/10.1097/PEC.0000000000001913


• Morrison, L. J., Allan, R., & Grunfeld, A. (2000). Improving the emergency department detection rate of domestic violence using direct questioning. The Journal of Emergency Medicine, 19(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0736-4679(00)00204-3


• Nelson, H. D., Bougatsos, C., & Blazina, I. (2012). Screening women for intimate partner violence: A systematic review to update the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(11), 796–808. https://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-11-201206050-00447


• O’Doherty, L., Hegarty, K., Ramsay, J., Davidson, L. L., Feder, G., & Taft, A. (2015). Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 7, CD007007. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007007.pub3


• O’Doherty, L. J., Taft, A., Hegarty, K., Ramsay, J., Davidson, L. L., & Feder, G. (2014). Screening women for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: Abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 348, Article g2913. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g2913


• Olson, L., Anctil, C., Fullerton, L., Brillman, J., Arbuckle, J., & Sklar, D. (1996). Increasing emergency physician recognition of domestic violence. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 27(6), 741–746. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0196-0644(96)70193-2


• Power, C., Bahnisch, L., & McCarthy, D. (2011). Social work in the emergency department: Implementation of a domestic and family violence screening program. Australian Social Work, 64(4), 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2011.606909


• Power, C., & Parry, Y. (2007). An evaluation of Flinders Medical Centre Emergency Department family violence screening program. Flinders University.


• Rhodes, K. V., Drum, M., Anliker, E., Frankel, R. M., Howes, D. S., & Levinson, W. (2006). Lowering the threshold for discussions of domestic violence: A randomized controlled trial of computer screening. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1107–1114. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.10.1107


• Rhodes, K. V., Lauderdale, D. S., He, T., Howes, D. S., & Levinson, W. (2002). “Between me and the computer”: Increased detection of intimate partner violence using a computer questionnaire. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 40(5), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2002.127181


• Svavarsdottir, E. K. (2010). Detecting intimate partner abuse within clinical settings: Self-report or an interview. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 24(2), 224–232. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6712.2009.00709.x


• Trautman, D. E., McCarthy, M. L., Miller, N., Campbell, J. C., & Kelen, G. D. (2007). Intimate partner violence and emergency department screening: Computerized screening versus usual care. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 49(4), 526–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2006.11.022


• Wilbur, L., Noel, N., & Couri, G. (2013). Is screening women for intimate partner violence in the emergency department effective? Annals of Emergency Medicine, 62(6), 609–611. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2013.06.012

Additional evidence on the intervention

This list contains other evidence that was not eligible for the Intervention Review based on our selection criteria but may provide further information regarding the intervention.

• Ahmad, I, Ali, P. A., Rehman, S., Talpur, A., & Dhingra, K. (2017). Intimate partner violence screening in emergency department: A rapid review of the literature. Journal of Clinical Nursing, 26(21–22), 3271–3285. https://doi.org/10.1111/jocn.13706


• Christensen, M., Metcalfe, L. L., & O’Reilly, R. (2021). Emergency department nurses experiences of female domestic violence presentations: A review of the qualitative literature. Nursing Forum, 56(4), 925–937. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12632


• Creedy, D. K., Baird, K., Gillespie, K., & Brandjerdporn, G. (2021). Australian hospital staff perceptions of barriers and enablers of domestic and family violence screening and response. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1), Article 1121. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07083-y


• De Marchis, E. H., McCaw, B., Fleegler, E. W., Cohen, A. J., Lindau, S. T., Huebschmann, A. G., Tung, E. L., Hessler, D. M., & Gottlieb, L. M. (2021). Screening for interpersonal violence: Missed opportunities and potential harms. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 61(3), 439–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2021.02.010


• Fang, J., & Donley, E. (2022). Intimate partner violence screening tools in emergency departments: A scoping review. Practice, 34(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2021.1959542


• Feltner, C., Wallace, I., Berkman, N., Kistler, C. E., Middleton, J. C., Barclay, C., Higginbotham, L., Green, J. T., & Jonas, D. E. (2018). Screening for intimate partner violence, elder abuse, and abuse of vulnerable adults: Evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Journal of the American Medical Association, 320(16), 1688–1701. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.13212


• Ghafournia, N., & Healey, S. J. R. (2022). Identifying domestic violence and sexual assault presentations at a regional Australian hospital emergency department: Comparative analysis of domestic violence and sexual assault cases. Women's Health, 18, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/17455057221103992


• Houry, D., Cunningham, R. M., Hankin, A., James, T., Bernstein, E., & Hargarten, S. (2009). Violence prevention in the emergency department: Future research priorities. Academic Emergency Medicine, 16(11), 1089–1095. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00544.x


• Koziol-McLain, J., Giddings, L., Rameka, M., & Fyfe, E. (2008). Intimate partner violence screening and brief intervention: Experiences of women in two New Zealand health care settings. Journal of Midwifery and Women's Health, 53(6), 504–510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmwh.2008.06.002


• Miller, C. J., Adjognon, O. L., Brady, J. E., Dichter, M. E., & Iverson, K. M. (2021). Screening for intimate partner violence in healthcare settings: An implementation-oriented systematic review. Implementation Research and Practice, 2. https://doi.org/10.1177/26334895211039894


• Northern Territory Department of Health Community Services, Women’s Health Strategy Unit. (2003). Domestic/family violence screening pilot evaluation report. Northern Territory Government. digitallibrary.health.nt.gov.au/prodjspui/bitstream/10137/125/1/DV_Evaluation_Report_Final_2003.pdf


• O’Campo, P. Kirst, M., Tsamis, C., Chambers, C., & Ahmad, F. (2011). Implementing successful intimate partner violence screening programs in health care settings: Evidence generated from a realist-informed systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 72(6), 855–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.12.019


• Rasmussen, V., Steel, Z., Spangaro, J., & Torok, M. (2021). Investigating the prevalence of intimate partner violence victimisation in women presenting to the emergency department in suicidal crisis. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 33(4), 703–710. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13714


• Saberi E., Eather N., Pascoe S., McFadzean, M.-L., Doran, F., & Hutchinson, M. (2017). Ready, willing and able? A survey of clinicians’ perceptions about domestic violence screening in a regional hospital emergency department. Australasian Emergency Nursing Journal, 20(2), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aenj.2017.02.001


• Spangaro, J., Vajda, J., Klineberg, E., Lin, S., Griffiths, C., McNamara, L., Saberi, E., Field, E., & Miller, A. (2022). Emergency department staff experiences of screening and response for intimate partner violence in a multi-site feasibility study: Acceptability, enablers and barriers. Australasian Emergency Care, 25(3), 179–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.auec.2021.12.004


• Spangaro, J., Vajda, J., Klineberg, E., Lin, S., Griffiths, C., Saberi, E., Field, E., Miller, A., & McNamara, L. (2020). Intimate partner violence screening and response in New South Wales emergency departments: A multi-site feasibility study. Emergency Medicine Australasia, 32(4), 548–555. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.13452


• Spangaro, J., Zwi, A. B., & Poulos, R. (2009). The elusive search for definitive evidence on routine screening for intimate partner violence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10(1), 55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524838008327261


• Spinola, C., Stewart, L., Fanslow, J., & Norton, R. (1998). Developing and implementing an intervention: Evaluation of an emergency department pilot on partner abuse. Evaluation & the Health Professions, 21(1), 91–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/016327879802100105


• Sweeny, A. L., Bourke, C., Torpie, T. M., Sargeant, S., Hughes, J., Watson, J., Conroy, S., Carrasco, A., Tighe, K., Thornton, N. S., Cumner, A. S., & Baird, K. (2022). Improving domestic violence screening practices in the emergency department: An Australian perspective. Emergency Medicine Journal, 40(2), 114–119. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2021-211167


• Todahl, J., & Walters, E. (2011). Universal screening for intimate partner violence: A systematic review. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 37(3), 355–369. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2009.00179.x