NZMA Home

Table of contents
Current issue
Search journal
Archived issues
NZMJ Obituaries 1887-2006
Classifieds
Hotline (free ads)
How to subscribe
How to contribute
How to advertise
Contact Us
Copyright
Other journals
The New Zealand Medical Journal

 Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association, 26-November-2004, Vol 117 No 1206

Prevalence of intimate partner violence among women presenting to an urban adult and paediatric emergency care department
Jane Koziol-McLain, Julie Gardiner, Pam Batty, Maria Rameka, Elaine Fyfe, Lynne Giddings
Abstract
Aim To determine the prevalence of intimate partner violence among women seeking emergency healthcare.
Methods Trained research assistants asked eligible adult women presenting to an urban emergency care department during randomly selected 4-hour time blocks to participate in a study about violence between partners. A structured interview was conducted that included a partner violence screen, identification of high risk, and lifetime prevalence. Culturally safe study protocols were developed that held women’s and children’s safety paramount.
Results 174 women aged 16 to 88 years of age participated. Overall, 21% (95% CI=15.2%, 27.4%) of women screened positive for partner violence, and 44% (95% CI=36.9%, 51.7%) reported partner violence at some time in their adulthood.
Conclusions A large proportion of women were willing to answer sensitive questions regarding partner violence during an emergency visit. Rates of partner violence among women seeking healthcare were significant, and consistent with rates reported internationally. Healthcare providers have an opportunity to identify and intervene to assist women exposed to abuse by a partner.

Heightened awareness of intimate partner violence prevalence and its associated negative health effects have led to identification of partner violence as a significant public health problem for women internationally1–3 as well as in Aotearoa New Zealand.4–6 The Ministry of Health recently published family violence intervention guidelines7 and District Health Boards (DHBs) are now planning implementation processes.
While randomised control trials are not yet available to test healthcare site-based screening effectiveness,8,9 some questions have been answered: several international studies,10–12 and one recent New Zealand study,13 indicate that women do not mind being asked direct questions about abuse by healthcare professionals; intimate partner violence screens administered in healthcare sites have been shown to have concurrent validity14-17; and partner violence screening has been found to be a useful marker in identifying women at risk for future violence.18, 19 There is limited data, however, regarding intimate partner violence in Aotearoa New Zealand, with the preponderance of available data reporting population-based rather than healthcare setting-based prevalence estimates.
The New Zealand National crime survey, based on a population sample using computer-assisted self-interviewing, identified that 21% of ever partnered women report physical violence by a heterosexual partner at some time during their life.20(p.139) In another population-based Aotearoa New Zealand study, Kazantzis et al21 identified a lifetime prevalence of being “seriously beaten or attacked by a member of your family” among women to be 17%. Surveying a Dunedin birth cohort at 21 years of age,22 11% of women reported they had been “deliberately harmed” by a partner in the past 12 months. While some data have been collected, we still do not know what proportion of women presenting to Aotearoa New Zealand healthcare settings are at risk for partner violence. If the international data holds for New Zealand, higher prevalence rates can be expected among women seeking healthcare compared to population rates.
The estimation of Aotearoa New Zealand healthcare prevalence rates are ideally based on face-to-face interviews conducted by dedicated research staff. Relying on estimates from chart reviews consistently results in biased estimates and healthcare staff cannot be expected to reliably enter consecutive patients in periods of high patient care demand. Many barriers to asking patients about partner violence have been identified.23-25 It was the lack of data regarding Aotearoa New Zealand healthcare site-based prevalence, the basic building block for educating healthcare professionals about partner abuse, that led to the development of the current research. The purpose of this study was to document the extent of intimate partner violence among women presenting for care in an Aotearoa New Zealand emergency care department.

Methods

In this descriptive study, adult women, presenting (either for their own care or for the care of their child) to the adult or paediatric emergency care departments at Middlemore Hospital in South Auckland, were asked to participate in a study about violence between partners.
The adult and paediatric (Kidz First) departments receive approximately 50,000 and 20,000 annual visits respectively. Severely ill women (based on triage category) were excluded from eligibility, as were women who were non-English speaking or organically or functionally impaired. It was beyond the resources of this study to provide the specialised interpreter training that would have been necessary to ensure safe interviewing of non-English speaking women.
The sample included all eligible women presenting during randomly selected 4-hour time blocks during a 4-week period. The number of shifts (n=16) was calculated to achieve a target sample size of 162 to provide prevalence estimates ±5% (based on an expected prevalence of 13%). The study methods were similar to those used by the principal investigator (Koziol-McLain) in two prior emergency department-based studies outside New Zealand.15,26 One study measured the prevalence of intimate partner violence26 and the second study examined the accuracy of a brief intimate partner violence screen.15
The current study protocol was determined through collaboration with researchers, clinicians, and community advocates. Consultation with Maori (the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand) was provided by Auckland University of Technology Kawa Whakaruruhau Komiti, the District Health Board cultural units (Maori and Pasifika), representatives from Raukura Hauora O Tainui and South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network. The study protocol was approved by a health Regional Ethics Committee and the hospital Clinical Board.
In the current study, trained research assistants (all experienced nurses), in face-to-face brief, structured interviews, collected data to estimate the lifetime and 1-year prevalence of women abused by a current or past intimate partner.
A standardised brief screen15 included the following three questions:
  • Within the past year have you been hit, slapped, kicked, or otherwise physically hurt? (If so, by whom);
  • Within the past year have you been forced to have sexual activities against your will? (If so, by whom); and
  • Is there a current or past partner who is making you feel unsafe?
The screen was considered positive if the woman responded affirmatively to either of the first two questions—identifying the abuser as a current or past partner—or the third question. High-danger risk factors were assessed in women who screened positive. These included having children or other vulnerable persons living in the household and selected items from the Danger Assessment (partner threatened to kill the woman or family, partner has made a threat with a weapon, or the partner has access to a gun).27,28
All interviews were conducted in private, and a safety plan was in place (in accordance with ethical conduct for family-violence research.29–31 Whether they chose to participate in the study or not, all women were offered a brief intervention about partner violence that included a brochure and referral to the local partner violence community agency. Women who screened positive for high risk were referred to the agency social worker. Arrangements were made for a social worker to be on-call for consultation during after hours.

Results

371 women entered the emergency care department during the selected shifts. Non-eligibility and non-response are diagrammed in Figure 1. Forty-three women who were approached by a research assistant refused, 174 agreed to participate (80% response rate including refusals only). Entry of participants was greater in the adult emergency care department (n=146, 84% of the sample, an average of 9 women each time block over 16 time blocks) compared to in the paediatric emergency care department (n=28, 16% of the sample, an average of 3 women each time block over 9 time blocks).
Participants typically identified as New Zealand European (50%), Maori (22%), Samoan (12%), Tongan (4%), Fijian Indian (3%), or Cook Island Maori (3%). Participants ranged in age from 16 to 88 years in age. The mean age was 38.1 years (SD=17.9).
Twenty-one percent (21.3%, 95% CI=15.2%, 27.4%) of women screened positive for intimate partner violence (Table 1). Forced sex in the past year was rarely reported. Feeling unsafe from a partner, and forced sex, were rarely reported without concomitant physical abuse. Among women who screened positive for violence (n=37), 15 responded affirmatively to one or more of the high risk questions (9 women reported that their current or former partner had threatened to kill them or someone in the family in the past 3 months; 7 women reported there was a vulnerable person in their household who was in danger of being harmed; 5 women reported they felt it was unsafe to return home; 6 women reporting thinking of harming themselves; and 13 women reported they were thinking about or currently in the process of separating from their partner). Children were living in the household of 22 of the women who screened positive, 9 of which were in the high-risk category. Nine women related the abuse to their current emergency care visit.
Forty-four percent (44.3%, 95% CI=36.9%, 51.7%) of women reported a lifetime exposure to intimate partner violence (Table 1). All domains of partner violence (physical, forced sex, and feeling unsafe) were prevalent, although only 11% of the women who had been exposed to partner violence (lifetime prevalence) reported either forced sex and or feeling unsafe without concomitant physical violence.
While the numbers available for subgroup analysis were small, some trends were apparent (Table 2). Higher rates of acute partner violence (screen positive) were evident in women sampled in the adult versus paediatric emergency care unit, among Maori women and among younger women (less than 40 years of age).

Figure 1. Study participation
(Click here to view Figure 1)

Table 1. Partner violence among women seeking emergency healthcare (n=174)
(Click here to view Table 1 and Table 2)
Table 2. Partner violence among demographic groups

Discussion

We found high rates of partner violence among women seeking emergency healthcare; one out of five women screened positive for partner violence. The positive screening (21%) and lifetime (44%) partner violence rates for women presenting for emergency care are significantly higher than population estimates, consistent with international literature, thus marking the healthcare setting, emergency care departments in this study, as areas of high risk. This high risk translates into an opportunity to intervene and assist women to not only reduce morbidity and mortality, but to improve their safety and wellbeing. This opportunity is further supported by research documenting the use of healthcare services among abused women who are subsequently killed by a current or former intimate partner.32,33
The proportion of abused women presenting to the emergency healthcare setting who are living with children in their households is cause for concern. These children are not only at increased risk of being battered themselves, but are also likely to suffer significant deleterious effects by being exposed to partner violence.34,35 The sampling of women from the paediatric emergency care department was less than from the adult department, and yet, women did disclose abuse in the paediatric setting and interventions were provided.
There are some important limitations to our study. Most notably, all women were not screened. Research assistants judged some women too ill to be interviewed; others were excluded by design, such as non-English speaking women. While the response rate including only women who were offered participation (participants and refusals) was 80%; including women missed due to high patient flow, feeling too unwell, or lacking privacy (where family members—most often parents of 16 to 18 year old young women, or children of very old women—preferred to stay with the patient), the response rate was 60%. In some cases, excluded women may be likely to have a higher prevalence of violence.
Several limitations pertain to the implications of this research for practice. The current study was implemented by trained, willing research assistants, and issues of past abuse were acknowledged and support offered. Implementation of screening by non-volunteers would require perhaps more education and support. In addition, our findings represent responses of women asked about abuse within the context of a research study, including an informed consent process. Disclosure of abuse in practice may differ (either higher or lower). Finally, the study was conducted in a setting with a social work department that was available and eager to participate. This is unlikely to be the case in all settings.
Despite these limitations, the high proportion of women seeking healthcare in emergency departments who are abused by their partners indicates a substantial burden of abuse in patient populations. In addition, the successful conduct of the study demonstrates that women are generally willing to answer sensitive questions regarding partner violence during a healthcare visit. With education and support, rather than ignore the problem of abused women, healthcare providers can learn to respond effectively, described by Wilson as ‘seeing for effective action’.36
Some initiatives are already under way: policies, procedures, and other system competencies for addressing partner violence are advised for all healthcare settings37 and curricula for health professional family violence education is being developed.38 Future research will be needed to test programmes aimed at both partner violence intervention and prevention. The information gained in this study provides important baseline rates to inform these efforts. Reducing violence is one of 13 population health objectives chosen for implementation by the Aotearoa New Zealand government.39 Brief screening and intervention may provide women with a safe space in which to choose whether to disclose the violence in their lives and empower them to continue to seek protection from further harm.
Healthcare providers are in a strategic position to provide compassionate, supportive, culturally safe care to battered women who are otherwise isolated. Healthcare must take its place at the table in addressing the issue of partner violence, a problem whose causes and solutions relate to clients, families, and communities—as well as employment, economics, and cultural and gender models.
Author information: Jane Koziol-McLain, Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Trauma Research Unit, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Auckland; Julie Gardiner, Emergency Nurse, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland; Pam Batty, Emergency Nurse, Middlemore Hospital, Auckland; Maria Rameka, Principal Lecturer, School of Nursing, Auckland University of Technology (AUT); Elaine Fyfe, Research Officer, Auckland University of Technology (AUT); Lynne Giddings Associate Professor, Interdisciplinary Trauma Research Unit, Auckland University of Technology (AUT), Auckland
Acknowledgments: Funding for this study was provided by the AUT Faculty of Health Research Contestable Fund and the Ministry of Health. The authors thank the participating women (who were willing to share the trauma in their lives); the research assistants; our collaborators at Counties Manukau District Health Board Social Work (especially Diana Dowdle), Pacific Health, and Maori Health; Middlemore Emergency Care Department; and Kidz First. We also thank representatives from Raukura Hauora O Tainui and South Auckland Family Violence Prevention Network.
Correspondence: Jane Koziol-McLain, Interdisciplinary Trauma Research Unit, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland. Fax (09) 917-9796; email jane.koziol-mclain@aut.ac.nz
References:
  1. Conway P. World Report on Violence and Health. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology. Jan-Feb 2004;14:44–5.
  2. Salzman LE, Fanslow JL, McMahon PM, Shelley GA. Intimate partner violence surveillance: Uniform definitions and recommended data elements, Version 1.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Prevention; 1999.
  3. Heise LL, Ellsberg M, Gottemoeller M. Ending Violence Against Women. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Public Health, Population Information Program; 1999.
  4. Fanslow J, Norton R. Violence against women: priorities for public health research in New Zealand. N Z Med J. 1994;107:63–4.
  5. New Zealand Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Social Welfare. The New Zealand Government Statement of Policy on Family Violence. Wellington NZ; 1996.
  6. Family Violence Focus Group. Te Rito: New Zealand family violence prevention strategy. Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Social Development; 2002. Available online. URL: http://www.msd.govt.nz/publications/te-rito/strategy.html Accessed November 2004.
  7. Fanslow JL. Family violence intervention guidelines. Wellington: Ministry of Health; 2002.
  8. Nelson HD, Nygren P, McInerney Y, Klein J. Screening women and elderly adults for family and intimate partner violence: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:387–96.
  9. Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, et al. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ. 2002;325:314.
  10. Caralis PV, Musialowski R. Women's experiences with domestic violence and their attitudes and expectations regarding medical care of abuse victims. South Med J. 1997;90:1075–80.
  11. Friedman L, Samet J, Roberts M, et al. Inquiry about victimization experiences: A survey of patient preferences and physician practices. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1992;152:1186–90.
  12. Hayden SR, Barton ED, Hayden M. Domestic violence in the emergency department: how do women prefer to disclose and discuss the issues? J Emerg Med. 1997;15:447–51.
  13. Goodyear-Smith F, Arroll B, Sullivan S, et al. Lifestyle screening: development of an acceptable multi-item general practice tool. N Z Med J. 2004;117(1205). URL: http://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/117-1205/1146
  14. Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA. 2003;289:589–600.
  15. Feldhaus K, Koziol-McLain J, Amsbury HL, et al. Accuracy of three brief screening questions for detecting partner violence in the emergency department. JAMA. 1997;277:1357–61.
  16. Weiss SJ, Ernst AA, Cham E, Nick TG. Development of a screen for ongoing intimate partner violence. Violence Vict. Apr 2003;18:131–41.
  17. Soeken K, Parker B, McFarlane J, Lominak MC. The abuse assessment screen: A clinical instrument to measure frequency, severity, and perpetrator of abuse against women. In: J.C.Campbell, ed. Beyond diagnosis: Changing the health care response to battered women and their children. Newbury Park: Sage; 1998:195–203.
  18. Koziol-McLain J, Coates CJ, Lowenstein SR. Predictive validity of a screen for partner violence against women. Am J Prev Med. 2001;21:93–100.
  19. Houry D, Feldhaus K, Peery B, et al. A positive domestic violence screen predicts future domestic violence. J Interpers Violence. 2004;19:955–66.
  20. Morris A, Reilly J, Berry S, Ransom R. New Zealand National Survey of Crime Victims 2001. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Justice; 2003.
  21. Kazantzis N, Flett RA, Long NR, et al. Domestic violence, psychological distress, and physical illness among New Zealand women: results from a community-based sample. N Z J Psych. 2000;29:67–73.
  22. Langley J, Martin J, Nada-Raja S. Physical assault among 21-year-olds by partners. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1997;12:675–84.
  23. Waalen J, Goodwin MM, Spitz AM, et al. Screening for intimate partner violence by health care providers. Barriers and interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2000;19:230–7.
  24. Fanslow JL, Norton RN, Robinson EM, Spinola CG. Outcome evaluation of an emergency department protocol of care on partner abuse. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1998;22:598–603.
  25. Spinola C, Stewart L, Fanslow J, Norton R. Developing and implementing an intervention. Evaluation of an emergency department pilot on partner abuse. Eval Health Prof. 1998;21:91–119.
  26. Abbott JT, Johnson R, Koziol-McLain J, Lowenstein SR. Domestic violence against women: Incidence and prevalence in an emergency department population. JAMA. 1995;273:1763–7.
  27. Campbell JC. Assessing dangerousness. Newbury Park: Sage; 1995.
  28. Campbell JC, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: results from a multisite case control study. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1089–97.
  29. Parker B, Ulrich Y. A protocol of safety: Research on abuse of women. Nursing Research. 1990;39:248–50.
  30. Sullivan CM, Cain D. Ethical and safety considerations when obtaining information from or about battered women for research purposes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. May 2004;19:603–18.
  31. Ellsberg M, Heise L. Bearing witness: ethics in domestic violence research. Lancet. 2002;359:1599–1604.
  32. Sharps PW, Koziol-McLain J, McFarlane J, Sachs C, Xu X. Missed opportunities for prevention of femicide by health care providers. Preventive Medicine. 2001;33:373–80.
  33. Wadman MC, Muelleman RL. Domestic violence homicides: ED use before victimization. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17:689–91.
  34. Mullender A, Hague G, Imam U, et al. Children's Perspectives on Domestic Violence. London: SAGE; 2002.
  35. Edleson JL. Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 1999;14:839–70.
  36. Wilson D. Care and advocacy: moral cornerstones or moral blindness when working with women experiencing partner abuse? J Nurs Law. 2000;7:43–51.
  37. Coben JH. Measuring the quality of hospital-based domestic violence programs. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1176–83.
  38. Cohn F, Salmon ME, Stobo JD, eds. Confronting Chronic Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Institute of Medicine; 2002.
  39. King A. The New Zealand Health Strategy. Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2000. Available online. URL: http://www.moh.govt.nz/nzhs.html Accessed November 2004.
     
Current issue | Search journal | Archived issues | Classifieds | Hotline (free ads)
Subscribe | Contribute | Advertise | Contact Us | Copyright | Other Journals