An interventional study of Universal Education in Violence, Domestic and Violence, Sexual, sponsored by Johns Hopkins University. Completed at 9 sites in United States. Open to female participants aged 18 Years to 59 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-18.
Sponsored by Johns Hopkins University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Violence against women is a major public health threat that carries significant consequences for women's health. Moreover, women experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) and sexual assault (SA) are more likely than non-abused women to seek certain forms of health services, such as for sexually transmitted infections, chronic pain and illnesses, depression and/or pregnancy-related concerns. As a result, the health sector is an ideal setting to identify and support survivors. The U.S. Institute of Medicine has identified the health care system, including the public health infrastructure, as key for identification of and support for survivors of violence, as well as for violence prevention. While some evidence-based models exist, no current national consensus has been reached on scalable best practices in screening and brief counseling for IPV/SA.
This multi-level intervention includes integrating into the clinic setting IPV/SA screening, universal education, trauma informed counseling, warm referrals (e.g. provider/staff contact advocacy program with survivor) to local IPV/SA advocacy agencies, and access to the evidence-based myPlan safety decision aid app. The evaluation, using a cluster randomized trial design, will measure longitudinal outcomes (over 6 months) of patient self-efficacy, health and safety outcomes, as well as participant and provider perceptions of the intervention and clinic level changes in primary and reproductive health clinics in four states (Arizona, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and West Virginia) to achieve the following aims:
Aim 1. Evaluate the effectiveness of an evidence-based screening, universal education and trauma-informed counseling with tailored safety action plan and referrals to partner IPV/SA programs compared to standard practice, on survivor health and safety outcomes over a cumulative period of six months.
Aim 2. Examine longitudinal changes in clinic-level screening, universal education, trauma informed counseling, safety action plans and referrals to on-site and/or partner IPV/SA programs and improved standards for documentation through the electronic health record (EHR) and continuous quality measurement and reporting.
Exclusion Criteria:
Train providers to integrate screening, universal education, trauma informed counseling, and mobile health (mHealth) technology through the myPlan app safety decision aid in collaboration with local IPV programs as well as the integration of documentation and quality improvement templates and measures into clinical settings.
Behavioral: Universal Education
Standard clinical practice
Clinic provider/staff training on implementing universal education into clinical practice to: 1.) provide all women information about IPV/SA, harm reduction, and available safety resources; 2) provide trauma-informed counseling to women who disclose IPV/SA; includes access to the myPlan safety decision aid to develop a tailored safety action plan; 3) provide warm referrals in partnership with local domestic violence and sexual assault (DV/SA) advocacy agencies; 4) integrate documentation and quality improvement templates and measures into clinical settings.
Change in use of safety behaviors
Measured by percent of safety behaviors the woman has tried and found helpful on the Safety Behaviors Checklist. The checklist was adapted from Sullivan and colleagues and Parker and colleagues. Includes use of community resources and safety steps (e.g. asked for help, hidden emergency money) and use of formal services (e.g., women's shelter, protection order, mental health services).
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Self-Efficacy to Use Harm Reduction Strategies
Measure adapted from Tancredi et al and Hibbard et al, assesses confidence to seek help for abuse, if needed, from a health care provider.
Time frame: 6 months
Provider Behavior
Clinic level measure. Provider Behavior at Visit Survey items administered after the provider visit to assess the provider's adherence to universal education intervention, i.e. discussing healthy and unhealthy relationships during the visit, and referring to resources.
Time frame: Baseline
Change in decisional conflict
We have adapted questions from validated subscales of the Decisional Conflict Scale as a measure of decision process. Measures whether the intervention helps a woman to understand the advantages and disadvantages of safety planning options and to know her values related to them. The Decisional Conflict Scale discriminates between people who make decisions and those who delay making decisions.
Time frame: 6 months
Change in Readiness to Take Action
0-10 scale of readiness to make changes to relationship for safety
Time frame: 6 months
Plan to share: No
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions 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.
Johns Hopkins University