Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to estimate the accuracy and effectiveness of screening tools and subsequent interventions in the detection and treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV) in non-high-risk settings (defined here as those in which routine IPV screening does not take place in the UK, such as in general practice).

Design/methodology/approach

Rapid review as defined by Grant and Booth – it is used under time or financial constraint to assess what is known using systematic review methods. Medline, PsycINFO, Embase and Cochrane Library databases to May 2019 were searched for “intimate partner violence” and synonyms plus terms related to screening and interventions. A Medline update was performed in August 2020. Data were extracted with the help of a predesigned tool and were synthesised to answer the two study aims. Data were mixed quantitative and qualitative.

Findings

The search yielded 10 relevant papers on screening (6 on accuracy and 4 on effectiveness) and 13 on intervention. These showed evidence of the effectiveness of simple screening tools and of subsequent interventions. However, the evidence was insufficient to support a change in UK guidelines which currently do not recommend their use outside of current high-risk environments.

Originality/value

Clinicians outside of high-risk areas should consider the use of some IPV screening tools and interventions but only within research protocols to gather further evidence.

中文翻译：

---

非高危环境 (IPV) 中亲密伴侣暴力的筛查工具和后续干预措施的准确性和有效性如何？快速审查

目的

本文的目的是评估筛查工具和后续干预措施在非高风险环境（此处定义为不进行常规 IPV 筛查的环境）中检测和治疗亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 的准确性和有效性。在英国的地方，例如在一般实践中）。

设计/方法/方法

由 Grant 和 Booth 定义的快速审查——在时间或财务限制下使用系统审查方法评估已知内容。Medline、PsycINFO、Embase 和 Cochrane 图书馆数据库到 2019 年 5 月被搜索“亲密伴侣暴力”和同义词以及与筛查和干预相关的术语。2020 年 8 月进行了 Medline 更新。在预先设计的工具的帮助下提取数据并进行合成以回答两个研究目标。数据混合了定量和定性。

发现

搜索产生了 10 篇关于筛查的相关论文（6 篇关于准确性，4 篇关于有效性）和 13 篇关于干预的论文。这些证明了简单筛查工具和后续干预措施的有效性。然而，证据不足以支持英国指南的变化，目前不推荐在当前高风险环境之外使用它们。

原创性/价值

高风险地区以外的临床医生应考虑使用一些 IPV 筛查工具和干预措施，但仅限于在研究方案内使用以收集进一步的证据。