CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT00526994Updated Jul 31, 2013Results posted

Randomized Controlled Trial of Routine Screening for IPV

A Phase 2/3 interventional study of screened and universal education in Quality of Life, Disability and Utilization of Health Care Services, sponsored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Completed at 1 site in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2013-07-31.

Sponsored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · Phase 2/3, Interventional, and Prevention

Phase
Phase 2/3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
2,700
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
Female
01

Study summary

This is a randomized controlled trial with three arms to establish the impact of screening and referral to services for women disclosing exposure to IPV.

Read the detailed description

Approximately 2675 women* will be enrolled and randomized to one of 3 arms. In the first arm, participants will be screened, and if disclosing IPV, will receive information on available resources in the community. In arms two and three, participants will not be screened, but one group will receive information on available resources in the community and the other will not. All three groups will be assessed for quality of life (SF-12;standardized and validated scale with 12 questions that measure overall health (1 item), physical functioning (2 items), role limitations due to physical health problems (4 items), bodily pain (1 item), energy/fatigue (1 item), social functioning (1 item), psychological distress (1 item), and well being (1 item) in the past 4 weeks; items are summed to form a physical health composite scale and a mental health composite scale; each scale is standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for the U.S. population with a possible range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent a better health state); disability; and utilization of health care and IPV services at baseline and at a 12 month follow-up. A pilot study, also using a randomized controlled trial design, will establish the feasibility, acceptability, and impact on disclosure rates, use of referral resources, and potential harms of three screening and referral strategies.

*sample size calculation based n needed to detect a standardized effect size of 0.3 with an α=.05 (1-tailed)and ß=.20 if there's a 20% IPV (+) rate and 30% lost-to-follow-up rate.

02

Conditions studied

  • Quality of Life
  • Disability
  • Utilization of Health Care Services

Keywords

  • intimate partner violence
  • domestic violence
  • spouse abuse
  • screening
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the lead sponsor of 273 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Of its 11 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 8 (73%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
Female
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • women attending obstetrics \& gynecology (OB-GYN), family planning, general medicine, family medicine or HIV/Sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinic

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • non-English speaking other than Spanish speakers
  • accompanied by a child >3 years of age without adequate provision for child care;
  • Visually- or hearing-impaired women;
  • without access to a telephone;
  • Severe Mental impairment
05

Study design

Phase
Phase 2 / Phase 3
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
2,700 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Screened

    Screened w/4 questions on intimate partner violence; if positive, receives referral information

    Other: screened

  • Active comparator
    Universal education

    all participants receive partner violence referral information

    Behavioral: universal education

  • No intervention
    Control

    no screen and no referral

Interventions

  • Otherscreened

    Asked 4 questions on current exposure to intimate partner violence; if positive, receives referral information

  • Behavioraluniversal education

    receives referral information

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Quality of Life, Physical Health Composite

    Assessed with Quality of Life SF-12 V.2 (Ware, Kosinski,Turner-Bowker, \& Gandek, 2002). This instrument has 12 items measuring eight subscales of mental and physical health-general health, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to emotional problems, bodily pain, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, and mental health (psychological distress)-during the past 4 weeks. These subscales are combined to form a physical health composite scale and a mental health composite scale. Each scale is standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for the U.S. population with a possible range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent a better health state.

    Time frame: at one-year follow-up

  2. Quality of Life, Mental Health Composite

    Assessed with the Quality of Life SF-12 v.2 (Ware, Kosinski, Turner-Bowker, \& Gandek, 2002). This instrument has 12 items measuring eight subscales of mental and physical health-general health, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to emotional problems, bodily pain, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, and mental health (psychological distress)-during the past 4 weeks. These subscales are combined to form a physical health composite scale and a mental health composite scale. Each scale is standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for the U.S. population with a possible range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent a better health state.

    Time frame: past 30 days

Secondary outcomes

  1. Utilization of Health Care

    number of ambulatory care visits

    Time frame: during past year

  2. Disability

    days lost from housework

    Time frame: one year follow-up

07

Results

Posted Jul 31, 2013
Limitations and caveats
12% lost to follow-up differed in age, education, and insurance status from those retained. Generalizability of the findings is limited by the urban setting; exclusion of some participants.

Participant flow

May, 2009-April, 2010 at 10 primary health care clinics in Chicago

Participant flow — Overall Study
MilestoneScreened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)Control
Started909893898
Completed801772791
Not completed108121107
Withdrew: Lost to follow-up9810896
Withdrew: Death433
Withdrew: Withdrawal by subject275
Withdrew: Incarcerated, impaired, incomplete433

Outcome measures

PrimaryQuality of Life, Physical Health Composite

Assessed with Quality of Life SF-12 V.2 (Ware, Kosinski,Turner-Bowker, \& Gandek, 2002). This instrument has 12 items measuring eight subscales of mental and physical health-general health, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to emotional problems, bodily pain, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, and mental health (psychological distress)-during the past 4 weeks. These subscales are combined to form a physical health composite scale and a mental health composite scale. Each scale is standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for the U.S. population with a possible range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent a better health state.

Time frame:
at one-year follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Quality of Life, Physical Health Composite
units on a scaleScreened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)Control
Quality of Life, Physical Health Composite46.8 (46.1 to 47.4)46.4 (45.8 to 47.1)47.2 (46.5 to 47.8)
SecondaryUtilization of Health Care

number of ambulatory care visits

Time frame:
during past year
Reported as:
Mean · visits
Utilization of Health Care
visitsScreened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)Control
Utilization of Health Care5.4 (3.8 to 7.0)5.7 (4.1 to 7.3)5.9 (4.3 to 7.4)
SecondaryDisability

days lost from housework

Time frame:
one year follow-up
Reported as:
Mean · days
Disability
daysScreened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)Control
Disability1.9 (1.6 to 2.3)2.2 (1.8 to 2.5)1.9 (1.6 to 2.3)
PrimaryQuality of Life, Mental Health Composite

Assessed with the Quality of Life SF-12 v.2 (Ware, Kosinski, Turner-Bowker, \& Gandek, 2002). This instrument has 12 items measuring eight subscales of mental and physical health-general health, physical functioning, role limitations due to physical health problems, role limitations due to emotional problems, bodily pain, vitality (energy/fatigue), social functioning, and mental health (psychological distress)-during the past 4 weeks. These subscales are combined to form a physical health composite scale and a mental health composite scale. Each scale is standardized to have a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 for the U.S. population with a possible range from 0 to 100; higher scores represent a better health state.

Time frame:
past 30 days
Reported as:
Mean · units on a scale
Quality of Life, Mental Health Composite
units on a scaleScreened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)Control
Quality of Life, Mental Health Composite48.3 (47.5 to 49.1)48.0 (47.2 to 48.9)47.8 (47.0 to 48.6)

Adverse events

Collected over 1 year. Non-serious events are listed at a 1% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
Screened & Referred—0/801 (0%)0/801 (0%)
Universal Education (All Referred)—0/772 (0%)0/772 (0%)
Control—0/791 (0%)0/791 (0%)

Baseline characteristics

Age Continuous
Age Continuous(years)Screened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)ControlTotal
Mean39 ± 1538.3 ± 14.838.7 ± 15.138.7 ± 14.9
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)Screened & ReferredUniversal Education (All Referred)ControlTotal
Female9098938982700
Male0000
08

Study locations

1 site
  • Fantus Health clinic
    Chicago, Illinois, United States
09

References and documents

Publications

  • Klevens J, Sadowski LS, Kee R, Garcia D, Lokey C. Effect of Screening for Partner Violence on Use of Health Services at 3-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015 Aug 4;314(5):515-6. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6755. No abstract available. PubMed 26241603 ↗
  • Klevens J, Kee R, Trick W, Garcia D, Angulo FR, Jones R, Sadowski LS. Effect of screening for partner violence on women's quality of life: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012 Aug 15;308(7):681-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.6434. PubMed 22893165 ↗
10

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jul 31, 2013, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT00526994
Lead sponsor
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Collaborators
Cook County Health
Responsible party
Joanne Klevens (epidemiologist, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) — Principal investigator
First posted
Sep 10, 2007
Start date
May 2008
Primary completion
Jun 2011
Completion
Jun 2011
Results posted
Jul 31, 2013
Last update
Jul 31, 2013

Study contacts

Joanne Klevens, MD, PhD
principal investigator · Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Jul 2013. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion