Screening for and Disclosure of Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the PRICOV-19 Cross-Sectional Study in 33 Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design and Setting
2.2. Sampling and Recruitment
2.3. Measurements
2.3.1. Characteristics of the Respondent and the Practice
2.3.2. Patient Flow
2.3.3. (Pro-)Active Communication
2.3.4. Wellbeing of the Respondent
2.4. Data Analysis
2.5. Ethical Approval
3. Results
4. Discussion
Strengths and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Gómez Bravo, R.; Mariani Borrero, Y.; Dascal-Weichhendler, H.; Kopcavar Gucek, N.; Fischer, V.J.; Lygidakis, C.; Vögele, C. The Ends of Humanities—Volime 2: Self and Society in the Corona Crisis; Melusina Press: Luxembourg, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Fiorillo, A.; Gorwood, P. The consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and implications for clinical practice. Eur. Psychiatry J. Assoc. Eur. Psychiatr. 2020, 63, e32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hussein, J. COVID-19: What implications for sexual and reproductive health and rights globally? Sex. Reprod. Health Matters 2020, 28, 1746065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Campbell, L.M.; Jones, S.J. An innovative response to family violence after the Canterbury earthquake events: Canterbury Family Violence Collaboration’s achievements, successes, and challenges. Australas. J. Disaster Trauma Stud. 2016, 20, 89. [Google Scholar]
- Parkinson, D. Investigating the Increase in Domestic Violence Post Disaster: An Australian Case Study. J. Interpers. Violence 2019, 34, 2333–2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahase, E. COVID-19: EU states report 60% rise in emergency calls about domestic violence. BMJ 2020, 369. [Google Scholar]
- Piquero, A.R.; Jennings, W.G.; Jemison, E.; Kaukinen, C.; Knaul, F.M. Domestic violence during the COVID-19 pandemic—Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Crim. Justice 2021, 74, 101806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohler, G.; Bertozzi, A.L.; Carter, J.; Short, M.B.; Sledge, D.; Tita, G.E.; Uchida, C.D.; Brantingham, P.J. Impact of social distancing during COVID-19 pandemic on crime in Los Angeles and Indianapolis. J. Crim. Justice 2020, 68, 101692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardyns, W.; Keygnaert, I.; Ponnet, K.; Vandeviver, C. Partner and domestic violence during the COVID-19 crisis. Freedom Fear 2020, 16, 48–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keygnaert, I.; Fomenko, E.; De Schrijver, L.; Nobels, A.; Vandeviver, C. Eerste bevindingen omtrent Seksueel Geweld en COVID-19 in 2020 in België: Kan een voorspellingsmodel helpen in vergelijkbare lockdown-situaties? Tijdschr. Voor Seksuol. 2021, 45, 27–38. [Google Scholar]
- Hawkley, L.C.; Cacioppo, J.T. Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Ann. Behav. Med. A Publ. Soc. Behav. Med. 2010, 40, 218–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jung, S.; Kneer, J.; Krüger, T.H.C. Mental Health, Sense of Coherence, and Interpersonal Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic Lockdown in Germany. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- UNHCR. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Against Refugees, Returnees and Internally Displaced Persons. Guidelines for Prevention and Response; UNHCR: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Council of Europe. Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence. Council of Europe Treaty Series No. 210. 2011. Available online: https://eige.europa.eu/taxonomy/term/1089 (accessed on 7 December 2020).
- Vogel, V.; Uzieblo, K. Geweld in tijden van Corona: Hoe de COVID-19 pandemie het stereotype denken over huiselijk geweld nog duidelijker blootlegt. Psycholoog 2020, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Responding to Intimate Partner Violence and Sexual Violence against Women; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- WHO. Preventing Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence against Women: Taking Action and Generating Evidence; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Gartland, D.; Giallo, R.; Woolhouse, H.; Mensah, F.; Brown, S.J. Intergenerational Impacts of Family Violence—Mothers and Children in a Large Prospective Pregnancy Cohort Study. EClinicalMedicine 2019, 15, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- McCloskey, L.A. The intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment: Socio-ecological and psychological origins of maternal risk. In Parenting and Family Processes in Child Maltreatment and Intervention; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 47–76. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, J.P. Breaking the links in intergenerational violence: An emotional regulation perspective. Fam. Process 2013, 52, 163–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- World Health Organization. Global and Regional Estimates of Violence against Women: Prevalence and Health Effects of Intimate Partner Violence and Nonpartner Sexual Violence; WHO Press: Geneva, Switzerland, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jina, R.; Thomas, L.S. Health consequences of sexual violence against women. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013, 27, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keygnaert, I.; Vandeviver, C.; Nisen, L.; De Schrijver, L.; Depraetere, J.; Nobels, A.; Cismaru Inescu, A.; Lemonne, A.; Renard, B.; Vander Beken, T. Seksueel geweld in België: Eerste representatieve prevalentiestudie naar de aard, omvang en impact van seksueel geweld in België. Sci. Connect. 2018, 28–31. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8586795 (accessed on 7 December 2022).
- Phelps, C.; Sperry, L.L. Children and the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol. Trauma Theory Res. Pract. Policy 2020, 12, 73–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Besemer, S.; Ahmad, S.I.; Hinshaw, S.P.; Farrington, D.P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2017, 37, 161–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wood, S.L.; Sommers, M.S. Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence on Child Witnesses: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2011, 24, 223–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mason, F.; Lodrick, Z. Psychological consequences of sexual assault. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2013, 27, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keygnaert, I.; Wuyts, E.; Fomenko, E.; Nobels, A.; De Schrijver, L.; Vandeviver, C. Eindrapport Onderzoek naar Relaties, Stress en Agressie in de Eerste 12 Maanden van COVID-19 in België; Universiteit Gent-ICRH-IRCP: Ghent, Belgium, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Vandenberghe, A.; Keygnaert, I. Hoe kan de opvang van slachtoffers van seksueel geweld beter? Huisartsnu 2022, 2, 61–66. [Google Scholar]
- Evans, M.A.; Feder, G.S. Help-seeking amongst women survivors of domestic violence: A qualitative study of pathways towards formal and informal support. Health Expect. 2016, 19, 62–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Morgan, K.; Buller, A.M.; Evans, M.; Trevillion, K.; Williamson, E.; Malpass, A. The role of gender, sexuality and context upon help-seeking for intimate partner violence: A synthesis of data across five studies. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2016, 31, 136–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, K.; Williamson, E.; Hester, M.; Jones, S.; Feder, G. Asking men about domestic violence and abuse in a family medicine context: Help seeking and views on the general practitioner role. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2014, 19, 637–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santoniccolo, F.; Trombetta, T.; Rollè, L. The Help-Seeking Process in Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review. Sex. Res. Soc. Policy 2021, 20, 391–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- García-Moreno, C.; Hegarty, K.; d’Oliveira, A.F.L.; Koziol-McLain, J.; Colombini, M.; Feder, G. The health-systems response to violence against women. Lancet 2015, 385, 1567–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Goris, P.; Burssens, D.; Melis, B.; Vettenburg, N. Wenselijke Preventie Stap voor Stap; Garant: Antwerpen, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Burssens, D.; Vettenburg, N.; Goris, P.; Melis, B.; Van Gils, J.; Verdonck, D.; Walgrave, L. Preventie Gespiegeld: Visie en Instrumenten voor Wenselijke Preventie; Lannoo: Tielt, Belgium, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Keygnaert, I.; Dias, S.F.; Degomme, O.; Devillé, W.; Kennedy, P.; Kováts, A.; De Meyer, S.; Vettenburg, N.; Roelens, K.; Temmerman, M. Sexual and gender-based violence in the European asylum and reception sector: A perpetuum mobile? Eur. J. Public Health 2015, 25, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Depraetere, J.; Vandeviver, C.; Beken, T.V.; Keygnaert, I. Big Boys Don’t Cry: A Critical Interpretive Synthesis of Male Sexual Victimization. Trauma Violence Abus. 2018, 21, 991–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Depraetere, J.; Vandeviver, C.; Vander Beken, T.; Keygnaert, I. Nood aan een Kritisch Interpretatieve Synthese: Genderverschillen in prevalentiecijfers van seksueel geweld gekaderd. Panopticon 2018, 5, 389–406. [Google Scholar]
- Van Poel, E.; Vanden Bussche, P.; Klemenc-Ketis, Z.; Willems, S. How did general practices organize care during the COVID-19 pandemic: The protocol of the cross-sectional PRICOV-19 study in 38 countries. BMC Prim. Care 2022, 23, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dyrbye, L.N.; Satele, D.; Shanafelt, T. Ability of a 9-Item Well-Being Index to Identify Distress and Stratify Quality of Life in US Workers. J. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 58, 810–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harris, P.A.; Taylor, R.; Minor, B.L.; Elliott, V.; Fernandez, M.; O’Neal, L.; McLeod, L.; Delacqua, G.; Delacqua, F.; Kirby, J.; et al. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J. Biomed. Inform. 2019, 95, 103208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Collins, C.; Clays, E.; Van Poel, E.; Cholewa, J.; Tripkovic, K.; Nessler, K.; de Rouffignac, S.; Šantrić Milićević, M.; Bukumiric, Z.; Adler, L.; et al. Distress and Wellbeing among General Practitioners in 33 Countries during COVID-19: Results from the Cross-Sectional PRICOV-19 Study to Inform Health System Interventions. Int. J. Envirn. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 5675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peduzzi, P.; Concato, J.; Kemper, E.; Holford, T.R.; Feinstein, A.R. A simulation study of the number of events per variable in logistic regression analysis. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1996, 49, 1373–1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mørk, T.; Andersen, P.T.; Taket, A. Barriers among Danish women and general practitioners to raising the issue of intimate partner violence in general practice: A qualitative study. BMC Women’s Health 2014, 14, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Miller, D.; Jaye, C. GPs’ perception of their role in the identification and management of family violence. Fam. Pract. 2007, 24, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Drinkwater, J.; Stanley, N.; Szilassy, E.; Larkins, C.; Hester, M.; Feder, G. Juggling confidentiality and safety: A qualitative study of how general practice clinicians document domestic violence in families with children. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2017, 67, e437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Silva, P.A.d.; Algeri, S.; Silva, M.P.d.; Carvalho, K.K.d.; Viana, A.C.W.; Corrêa, M.L. The violence theme in professional training: A study based on teaching plans. Res. Soc. Dev. 2020, 9, e8119109225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szilassy, E.; Roy, J.; Williamson, E.; Pitt, K.; Man, M.-S.; Feder, G. Reaching everyone in general practice? Feasibility of an integrated domestic violence training and support intervention in primary care. BMC Fam. Pract. 2021, 22, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gear, C.; Koziol-McLain, J.; Wilson, D.; Clark, F. Developing a response to family violence in primary health care: The New Zealand experience. BMC Fam. Pract. 2016, 17, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Feltner, C.; Wallace, I.; Berkman, N.; Kistler, C.E.; Middleton, J.C.; Barclay, C.; Higginbotham, L.; Green, J.T.; Jonas, D.E. Screening for Intimate Partner Violence, Elder Abuse, and Abuse of Vulnerable Adults: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2018, 320, 1688–1701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Fernández-Aguilar, C.; Casado-Aranda, L.A.; Farrés Fernández, M.; Minué Lorenzo, S. Has COVID-19 changed the workload for primary care physicians? The case of Spain. Fam. Pract. 2021, 38, 780–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Total | Disclosure of DV | Screening for DV | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n (%) | % Not at All/Less | % as Much | % (Much) More | χ2; df; p-Value | % Not at All/Less | % as Much | % (Much) More | χ2; df; p-Value | |
GP Individual Factors | |||||||||
Position | 5.58; 2; 0.062 | 8.41; 2; 0.015 | |||||||
GP | 4022 (93.6) | 48.0 a | 41.0 a | 11.1 a | 38.8 a | 49.5 a | 11.8 a | ||
GP trainee | 273 (6.4) | 45.4 a | 38.8 a | 15.8 b | 37.7 a | 44.7 a | 17.6 b | ||
Years of experience | 27.49; 8; <0.001 | 28.00; 8; <0.001 | |||||||
0–9 | 1075 (25.0) | 44.4 a | 43.2 a | 12.5 a,b | 38.5 a | 49.7 a | 11.8 a | ||
10–19 | 1012 (23. 6) | 46.7 a,b | 41.7 a | 11.6 b | 36.4 a | 50.9 a | 12.7 a | ||
20–29 | 1117 (26.0) | 51.5 b | 39.1 a | 9.4 b | 41.5 a | 47.6 a,b | 10.9 a | ||
30–39 | 883 (20.6) | 49.4 a,b | 40.2 a | 10.4 b | 37.9 a | 51.0 a | 11.1 a | ||
Unknown | 208 (4.8) | 44.2 a,b | 36.5 a | 19.2 a | 39.4 a | 38.9 b | 21.6 b | ||
Practice Factors | |||||||||
Location of practice | 15.19; 10; 0.125 | 16.47; 10; 0.087 | |||||||
Big (inner) city | 1422 (33.1) | 50.4 a | 37.6 a | 12.0 a | 40.6 a | 47.2 a | 12.2 a | ||
Suburbs | 435 (10.1) | 43.2 a | 43.7 a | 13.1 a | 37.2 a | 50.8 a | 12.0 a | ||
(Small town) | 776 (18.1) | 49.0 a | 40.5 a | 10.6 a | 42.4 a | 47.0 a | 10.6 a | ||
Mixed urban-rural | 866 (20.2) | 45.2 a | 43.8 a | 11.1 a | 35.9 a | 50.8 a | 13.3 a | ||
Rural | 783 (18.2) | 47.4 a | 42.3 a | 10.3 a | 35.2 a | 52.4 a | 12.4 a | ||
Unknown | 13 (0.3) | 46.2 a | 38.5 a | 15.4 a | 53.8 a | 38.5 a | 7.7 a | ||
Number of GPs | 59.40, 8, <0.001 | 36.09; 8; <0.001 | |||||||
1 | 1487 (34.6) | 54.3 a | 36.2 a | 9.4 a | 42.8 a | 46.8 a | 10.4 a | ||
2 | 644 (15.0) | 42.7 b,c | 43.8 b | 13.5 b,c | 36.8 a,b | 49.4 a | 13.8 a,b | ||
3–4 | 877 (20.4) | 40.5 c | 44.9 b | 14.6 c | 33.3 b | 51.3 a | 15.4 b | ||
5+ | 1231 (28.7) | 47.3 b | 42.2 b | 10.5 a,b | 37.9 a,b | 50.9 a | 11.1 a | ||
Unknown | 56 (1.3) | 58.9 a,b,c | 33.9 a,b | 7.1 a,b,c | 53.6 a | 37.5 a | 8.9 a,b | ||
Patients with migration background with difficulty speaking the local language in the practice | 62.58; 6; <0.001 | 53.04; 6; <0.001 | |||||||
Below average | 2237 (52.1) | 50.6 a | 39.1 a,b | 10.3 a | 41.1 a | 47.5 a | 11.4 a | ||
Approx. average | 1094 (25.5) | 44.8 b | 44.4 c | 10.8 a | 34.4 b | 53.8 b | 11.8 a,b | ||
Above average | 733 (17.1) | 39.4 b | 43.7 b,c | 16.9 b | 33.0 b | 51.4 a,b | 15.6 b | ||
Unknown | 231 (5.4) | 61.0 c | 32.0 a | 6.9 a | 54.1 c | 35.9 c | 10.0 a,b | ||
Patients with limited health literacy or low literacy in the practice | 88.56; 6; <0.001 | 60.75; 6; <0.001 | |||||||
Below average | 1474 (34.3) | 52.7 a | 38.6 a,b | 8.7 a | 41.9 a | 48.2 a | 9.8 a | ||
Approx. average | 1862 (43.3) | 48.6 b | 42.7 b | 10.8 a | 37.6 a | 50.1 a | 12.3 a | ||
Above average | 772 (18.0) | 38.2 c | 43.3 b | 18.5 b | 31.2 b | 51.7 a | 17.1 b | ||
Unknown | 187 (4.4) | 62.6 a | 29.4 a | 8.0 a | 55.1 c | 36.9 b | 8.0 a | ||
Patients with financial problems in the practice | 95.30; 6; <0.001 | 54.46; 6; <0.001 | |||||||
Below average | 923 (21.5) | 52.9 a,b | 38.0 a | 9.1 a | 42.0 a | 47.2 a,b | 10.7 a,b | ||
Approx. average | 2284 (53.2) | 48.5 b | 41.9 a | 9.5 a | 38.2 a | 50.3 b | 11.5 b | ||
Above average | 919 (21.4) | 38.1 c | 43.5 a | 18.4 b | 33.2 b | 50.3 b | 16.5 c | ||
Unknown | 169 (3.9) | 63.3 a | 26.6 b | 10.1 a | 56.8 c | 38.5 a | 4.7 a | ||
Patients with psychiatric vulnerability in the practice | 121.88; 6; <0.001 | 76.33; 6; <0.001 | |||||||
Below average | 683 (15.9) | 59.6 a | 32.5 a | 7.9 a | 49.5 a | 39.7 a | 10.8 a | ||
Approx. average | 2646 (61.6) | 47.6 b | 42.3 b | 10.1 a | 37.4 b | 51.1 b | 11.5 a | ||
Above average | 794 (18.5) | 35.6 c | 45.8 b | 18.5 b | 31.0 c | 52.6 b | 16.4 b | ||
Unknown | 172 (4.0) | 60.5 a | 27.9 a | 11.6 a,b | 51.2 a | 41.9 a,b | 7.0 a | ||
Patients over the age of 70 in the practice | 8.80; 6; 0.185 | 10.46; 6; 0.106 | |||||||
Below average | 525 (12.2) | 47.2 a | 39.8 a | 13.0 a | 34.7 a | 52.4 a | 13.0 a | ||
Approx. average | 2019 (47.0) | 48.2 a | 40.3 a | 11.5 a | 39.7 a,b | 48.5 a | 11.7 a | ||
Above average | 1673 (39.0) | 47.0 a | 42.4 a | 10.6 a | 38.1 a,b | 49.3 a | 12.6 a | ||
Unknown | 78 (1.8) | 57.7 a | 28.2 a | 14.1 a | 51.3 b | 41.0 a | 7.7 a | ||
Patients with chronic diseases in the practice | 24.39; 6; <0.001 | 20.99; 6; 0.002 | |||||||
Below average | 203 (4.7) | 50.2 a,b | 36.0 a,b | 13.8 a,b | 36.0 a | 50.7 a | 13.3 a,b | ||
Approx. average | 2335 (54.4) | 48.4 a,b | 41.9 b | 9.7 b | 38.9 a | 50.4 a | 10.6 b | ||
Above average | 1647 (38.3) | 45.9 b | 40.9 b | 13.2 a | 37.8 a | 47.9 a | 14.3 a | ||
Unknown | 110 (2.6) | 59.1 a | 26.4 a | 14.5 a,b | 51.8 b | 38.2 a | 10.0 a,b | ||
Patients with little social support or limited informal care in the practice | 102.00; 6; <0.001 | 54.60; 6; <0.001 | |||||||
Below average | 937 (21.8) | 55.0 a | 35.8 a | 9.3 a | 42.5 a | 47.6 a,b | 9.9 a | ||
Approx. average | 2336 (54.4) | 47.3 b | 42.6 b | 10.0 a | 37.9 a | 50.2 b | 11.9 a | ||
Above average | 763 (17.8) | 36.2 c | 45.2 b | 18.6 b | 31.7 b | 51.4 b | 16.9 b | ||
Unknown | 259 (6.0) | 60.2 a | 30.1 a | 9.7 a | 52.5 c | 39.4 a | 8.1 a |
Disclosure of DV | Screening for DV | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Exp(B) Odds Ratio | 95% CI Odds Ratio | Exp(B) Odds Ratio | 95% CI Odds Ratio | |
Number of GPs (ref. 1) | ||||
2 | 1.09 | 1.03–1.16 | - | - |
3–4 | 1.13 | 1.07–1.19 | - | - |
5+ | 1.08 | 1.02–1.15 | - | - |
Unknown | 1.07 | 0.91–1.26 | - | - |
Patients with psychiatric vulnerability (ref. Below average) | ||||
Approx. average | 1.13 | 1.07–1.19 | 1.09 | 1.04–1.15 |
Above average | 1.28 | 1.20–1.36 | 1.13 | 1.06–1.20 |
Unknown | 1.10 | 0.99–1.22 | 1.01 | 0.92–1.11 |
Screening for financial problems (ref. Not at all/less than before) | ||||
As much as before | 1.22 | 1.15–1.28 | 1.56 | 1.48–1.63 |
(Much) more than before | 1.31 | 1.24–1.39 | 1.71 | 1.62–1.81 |
Unknown | 1.42 | 1.11–1.82 | 1.53 | 1.21–1.94 |
Disclosure of financial problems (ref. Not at all/less than before) | ||||
As much as before | 1.22 | 1.14–1.30 | 1.14 | 1.07–1.21 |
(Much) more than before | 1.30 | 1.22–1.39 | 1.18 | 1.11–1.25 |
Unknown | 1.66 | 0.84–3.31 | 1.09 | 0.57–2.08 |
Patients with previous DV actively contacted (ref. No) | ||||
Yes | 1.35 | 1.27–1.43 | 1.29 | 1.22–1.37 |
Unknown | 1.01 | 0.96–1.07 | 1.05 | 1.00–1.11 |
Triage info present in consultation room (ref. No) | ||||
Yes, in print | - | - | 1.10 | 1.05–1.15 |
Yes, electronically | - | - | 1.12 | 1.00–1.25 |
Unknown | - | - | 1.06 | 1.00–1.13 |
GP more involved in actively reaching out to patients (ref. Strongly disagree) | ||||
Disagree | - | - | 1.08 | 0.98–1.18 |
Neutral | - | - | 1.02 | 0.94–1.12 |
Agree | - | - | 1.10 | 1.01–1.20 |
Strongly agree | - | - | 1.12 | 1.02–1.23 |
Unknown | - | - | 1.01 | 0.90–1.13 |
Incidents (scale): Patients with urgent condition were seen late (ref. None) | ||||
1 type | 1.05 | 0.98–1.12 | - | - |
2 types | 0.99 | 0.92–1.07 | - | - |
3 types | 1.00 | 0.91–1.09 | - | - |
4 types | 1.05 | 0.95–1.17 | - | - |
5 types | 1.18 | 1.07–1.30 | - | - |
Unknown | 1.02 | 0.97–1.08 | - | - |
Communication (scale) presence of website, leaflets, answering machine (None) | ||||
1 item | - | - | 1.02 | 0.96–1.08 |
2 items | - | - | 1.06 | 0.95–1.18 |
3 items | - | - | 1.21 | 1.07–1.38 |
4 items | - | - | 1.15 | 0.99–1.35 |
Unknown | - | - | 1.02 | 0.97–1.07 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fomenko, E.; Keygnaert, I.; Van Poel, E.; Collins, C.; Gómez Bravo, R.; Korhonen, P.; Laine, M.K.; Murauskiene, L.; Tatsioni, A.; Willems, S. Screening for and Disclosure of Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the PRICOV-19 Cross-Sectional Study in 33 Countries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 3519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043519
Fomenko E, Keygnaert I, Van Poel E, Collins C, Gómez Bravo R, Korhonen P, Laine MK, Murauskiene L, Tatsioni A, Willems S. Screening for and Disclosure of Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the PRICOV-19 Cross-Sectional Study in 33 Countries. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(4):3519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043519
Chicago/Turabian StyleFomenko, Elizaveta, Ines Keygnaert, Esther Van Poel, Claire Collins, Raquel Gómez Bravo, Päivi Korhonen, Merja K. Laine, Liubove Murauskiene, Athina Tatsioni, and Sara Willems. 2023. "Screening for and Disclosure of Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Results of the PRICOV-19 Cross-Sectional Study in 33 Countries" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4: 3519. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20043519