Shannon N Wood, Nancy Perrin, Irene Akumu, Ben Asira, Amber Clough, Nancy Glass, Jacquelyn Campbell, Michele R Decker
{"title":"内罗毕非正规住区的严重亲密伴侣暴力风险:针对肯尼亚的危险评估。","authors":"Shannon N Wood, Nancy Perrin, Irene Akumu, Ben Asira, Amber Clough, Nancy Glass, Jacquelyn Campbell, Michele R Decker","doi":"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Understanding the risk for severe intimate partner violence (IPV) can help women and providers assess danger. The validated, widely used Danger Assessment (DA) developed for this purpose has not been tested in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). We tailored the DA to Nairobi, Kenya, and prospectively evaluated baseline danger against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the myPlan Kenya trial conducted in 3 informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, from 2017 to 2018. DA items were refined through formative and pilot phases, yielding minor wording modifications. Quantitative analyses prospectively evaluated baseline DA against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up to understand the predictive effect of the (1) original 20-item DA, (2) 16-item Kenya-DA (highest relative risk ratios [RRR] with severe IPV), and (3) 16-item Kenya-DA weighted (weighting based on strength of RRRs). Diagnostic criteria, including C-statistics, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve, were examined; logistic regressions quantified the odds of each metric predicting severe IPV at follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The original 20-item DA produced the highest specificity (75.41%) and lowest sensitivity (57.14%), resulting in the overall lowest C-statistic. Compared to the 16-item Kenya-DA, the Kenya-DA weighted produced slightly higher sensitivity (66.67% vs. 64.29%) and specificity (77.05% vs. 72.13%), resulting in the highest C-statistic (0.78 vs. 0.75). All versions successfully predicted severe IPV at 3-month follow-up (original DA: odds ratio [OR]=1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.12, 1.41, <i>P</i><.001; Kenya-DA: OR=1.33, 95% CI=1.16, 1.53, <i>P</i><.001; Kenya-DA weighted: OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.10, 1.28, <i>P</i><.001). Several factors identified as homicide risk factors in other settings were not prospectively associated with severe IPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within a high-danger LMIC context, all 3 DA configurations performed well diagnostically. We recommend the 16-item Kenya-DA given the value for simplicity and field implementation, whereas the Kenya-DA weighted can add accuracy for research purposes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12692,"journal":{"name":"Global Health: Science and Practice","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10906551/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Risk for Severe Intimate Partner Violence in Nairobi's Informal Settlements: Tailoring the Danger Assessment to Kenya.\",\"authors\":\"Shannon N Wood, Nancy Perrin, Irene Akumu, Ben Asira, Amber Clough, Nancy Glass, Jacquelyn Campbell, Michele R Decker\",\"doi\":\"10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Understanding the risk for severe intimate partner violence (IPV) can help women and providers assess danger. The validated, widely used Danger Assessment (DA) developed for this purpose has not been tested in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). We tailored the DA to Nairobi, Kenya, and prospectively evaluated baseline danger against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the myPlan Kenya trial conducted in 3 informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, from 2017 to 2018. DA items were refined through formative and pilot phases, yielding minor wording modifications. Quantitative analyses prospectively evaluated baseline DA against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up to understand the predictive effect of the (1) original 20-item DA, (2) 16-item Kenya-DA (highest relative risk ratios [RRR] with severe IPV), and (3) 16-item Kenya-DA weighted (weighting based on strength of RRRs). Diagnostic criteria, including C-statistics, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve, were examined; logistic regressions quantified the odds of each metric predicting severe IPV at follow-up.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The original 20-item DA produced the highest specificity (75.41%) and lowest sensitivity (57.14%), resulting in the overall lowest C-statistic. Compared to the 16-item Kenya-DA, the Kenya-DA weighted produced slightly higher sensitivity (66.67% vs. 64.29%) and specificity (77.05% vs. 72.13%), resulting in the highest C-statistic (0.78 vs. 0.75). All versions successfully predicted severe IPV at 3-month follow-up (original DA: odds ratio [OR]=1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.12, 1.41, <i>P</i><.001; Kenya-DA: OR=1.33, 95% CI=1.16, 1.53, <i>P</i><.001; Kenya-DA weighted: OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.10, 1.28, <i>P</i><.001). Several factors identified as homicide risk factors in other settings were not prospectively associated with severe IPV.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within a high-danger LMIC context, all 3 DA configurations performed well diagnostically. We recommend the 16-item Kenya-DA given the value for simplicity and field implementation, whereas the Kenya-DA weighted can add accuracy for research purposes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12692,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global Health: Science and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10906551/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Health: Science and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00116\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health: Science and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9745/GHSP-D-23-00116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Risk for Severe Intimate Partner Violence in Nairobi's Informal Settlements: Tailoring the Danger Assessment to Kenya.
Introduction: Understanding the risk for severe intimate partner violence (IPV) can help women and providers assess danger. The validated, widely used Danger Assessment (DA) developed for this purpose has not been tested in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC). We tailored the DA to Nairobi, Kenya, and prospectively evaluated baseline danger against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up.
Methods: We used data from the myPlan Kenya trial conducted in 3 informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, from 2017 to 2018. DA items were refined through formative and pilot phases, yielding minor wording modifications. Quantitative analyses prospectively evaluated baseline DA against severe IPV at 3-month follow-up to understand the predictive effect of the (1) original 20-item DA, (2) 16-item Kenya-DA (highest relative risk ratios [RRR] with severe IPV), and (3) 16-item Kenya-DA weighted (weighting based on strength of RRRs). Diagnostic criteria, including C-statistics, sensitivity, specificity, receiver operating characteristic curve, and area under the curve, were examined; logistic regressions quantified the odds of each metric predicting severe IPV at follow-up.
Results: The original 20-item DA produced the highest specificity (75.41%) and lowest sensitivity (57.14%), resulting in the overall lowest C-statistic. Compared to the 16-item Kenya-DA, the Kenya-DA weighted produced slightly higher sensitivity (66.67% vs. 64.29%) and specificity (77.05% vs. 72.13%), resulting in the highest C-statistic (0.78 vs. 0.75). All versions successfully predicted severe IPV at 3-month follow-up (original DA: odds ratio [OR]=1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.12, 1.41, P<.001; Kenya-DA: OR=1.33, 95% CI=1.16, 1.53, P<.001; Kenya-DA weighted: OR=1.19, 95% CI=1.10, 1.28, P<.001). Several factors identified as homicide risk factors in other settings were not prospectively associated with severe IPV.
Conclusion: Within a high-danger LMIC context, all 3 DA configurations performed well diagnostically. We recommend the 16-item Kenya-DA given the value for simplicity and field implementation, whereas the Kenya-DA weighted can add accuracy for research purposes.
期刊介绍:
Global Health: Science and Practice (GHSP) is a no-fee, open-access, peer-reviewed, online journal aimed to improve health practice, especially in low- and middle-income countries. Our goal is to reach those who design, implement, manage, evaluate, and otherwise support health programs. We are especially interested in advancing knowledge on practical program implementation issues, with information on what programs entail and how they are implemented. GHSP is currently indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, POPLINE, EBSCO, SCOPUS,. the Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index, and the USAID Development Experience Clearinghouse (DEC).
TOPICS:
Issued four times a year, GHSP will include articles on all global health topics, covering diverse programming models and a wide range of cross-cutting issues that impact and support health systems. Examples include but are not limited to:
Health:
Addiction and harm reduction,
Child Health,
Communicable and Emerging Diseases,
Disaster Preparedness and Response,
Environmental Health,
Family Planning/Reproductive Health,
HIV/AIDS,
Malaria,
Maternal Health,
Neglected Tropical Diseases,
Non-Communicable Diseases/Injuries,
Nutrition,
Tuberculosis,
Water and Sanitation.
Cross-Cutting Issues:
Epidemiology,
Gender,
Health Communication/Healthy Behavior,
Health Policy and Advocacy,
Health Systems,
Human Resources/Training,
Knowledge Management,
Logistics and Supply Chain Management,
Management and Governance,
mHealth/eHealth/digital health,
Monitoring and Evaluation,
Scale Up,
Youth.