Objective To examine the effectiveness of screening for intimate partner violence conducted within healthcare settings to determine whether or not screening increases identification and referral to support agencies, improves women’s wellbeing, decreases further violence, or causes harm. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials assessing effectiveness of screening. Study assessment, data abstraction, and quality assessment were conducted independently by two of the authors. Standardised estimations of the risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Data sources Nine databases searched up to July 2012 (CENTRAL, Medline, Medline(R), Embase, DARE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and ASSIA), and five trials registers searched up to 2010. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised or quasi-randomised trials of screening programmes for intimate partner violence involving all women aged ≥16 attending a healthcare setting. We included only studies in which clinicians in the intervention arm personally conducted the screening, or were informed of the screening result at the time of the consultation, compared with usual care (or no screening). Studies of screening programmes that were followed by structured interventions such as advocacy or therapeutic intervention were excluded. Results 11 eligible trials (n=13 027) were identified. In six pooled studies (n=3564), screening increased the identification of intimate partner violence (risk ratio 2.33, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 3.89), particularly in antenatal settings (4.26, 1.76 to 10.31). Based on three studies (n=1400), we detected no evidence that screening increases referrals to domestic violence support services (2.67, 0.99 to 7.20). Only two studies measured women’s experience of violence after screening (three to 18 months after screening) and found no reduction in intimate partner violence. One study reported that screening does not cause harm. Conclusions Though screening is likely to increase identification of intimate partner violence in healthcare settings, rates of identification from screening interventions were low relative to best estimates of prevalence of such violence. It is uncertain whether screening increases effective referral to supportive agencies. Screening does not seem to cause harm in the short term, but harm was measured in only one study. As the primary studies did not detect improved outcomes for women screened for intimate partner violence, there is insufficient evidence for screening in healthcare settings. Studies comparing screening versus case finding, or screening in combination with therapeutic intervention for women’s long term wellbeing, are needed to inform the implementation of identification policies in healthcare settings.

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has major affects on women’s wellbeing. There has been limited investigation of the association between type and severity of IPV and health outcomes. This article describes socio-demographic characteristics, experiences of abuse, health, safety, and use of services in women enrolled in the Women’s Evaluation of Abuse and Violence Care (WEAVE) project. We explored associations between type and severity of abuse and women’s health, quality of life, and help seeking. Women (aged 16–50 years) attending 52 Australian general practices, reporting fear of partners in last 12 months were mailed a survey between June 2008 and May 2010. Response rate was 70.5% (272/386). In the last 12 months, one third (33.0%) experienced Severe Combined Abuse, 26.2% Physical and Emotional Abuse, 26.6% Emotional Abuse and/or Harassment only, 2.7% Physical Abuse only and 12.4% scored negative on the Composite Abuse Scale. A total of 31.6% of participants reported poor or fair health and 67.9% poor social support. In the last year, one third had seen a psychologist (36.6%) or had 5 or more general practitioner visits (34.3%); 14.7% contacted IPV services; and 24.4% had made a safety plan. Compared to other abuse groups, women with Severe Combined Abuse had poor quality of life and mental health, despite using more medications, counseling, and IPV services and were more likely to have days out of role because of emotional issues. In summary, women who were fearful of partners in the last year, have poor mental health and quality of life, attend health care services frequently, and domestic violence services infrequently. Those women experiencing severe combined physical, emotional, and sexual abuse have poorer quality of life and mental health than women experiencing other abuse types. Health practitioners should take a history of type and severity of abuse for women with mental health issues to assist access to appropriate specialist support.

Intimate partner abuse (IPA) is a major public health problem with serious implications for the physical and psychosocial wellbeing of women, particularly women of child-bearing age. It is a common, hidden problem in general practice and has been under-researched in this setting. Opportunities for early intervention and support in primary care need to be investigated given the frequency of contact women have with general practice. Despite the high prevalence and health consequences of abuse, there is insufficient evidence for screening in primary care settings. Furthermore, there is little rigorous evidence to guide general practitioners (GPs) in responding to women identified as experiencing partner abuse. This paper describes the design of a trial of a general practice-based intervention consisting of screening for fear of partner with feedback to GPs, training for GPs, brief counselling for women and minimal practice organisational change. It examines the effect on women's quality of life, mental health and safety behaviours.