法国妇女对全科医生在初级保健咨询期间对亲密伴侣暴力进行系统筛查的看法

IF 2.3 3区 心理学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Yannick Pacquelet, Mathilde Vallet, Leïla Bouazzi, Marie Boiteux-Chabrier, Aline Hurtaud, Coralie Barbe
{"title":"法国妇女对全科医生在初级保健咨询期间对亲密伴侣暴力进行系统筛查的看法","authors":"Yannick Pacquelet, Mathilde Vallet, Leïla Bouazzi, Marie Boiteux-Chabrier, Aline Hurtaud, Coralie Barbe","doi":"10.1177/08862605251357831","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 2019, the French national health authority recommends that general practitioners (GPs) should perform systematic screening for intimate partner violence during consultations. To describe the opinions of French women about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care, and to identify factors associated with these opinions, a cross-sectional, observational study was performed among French women aged 18 years or over, using an ad hoc questionnaire about the role of the GP in screening for intimate partner violence disseminated on social networks. In total, 942 women responded (age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, 76.2% were in a relationship, 58.8% had children). Overall, 50.2% of participants were in favor of screening for intimate partner violence only in case of signs suggestive of violence, while 47.7% were in favor of systematic screening for all women, even in the absence of overt signs of violence, and 2.1% were not in favor of screening. The factors associated with a positive opinion of systematic screening for all women were as follows: working in the healthcare sector (odds ratio ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> ) = 1.3 (95% CI [1.01, 1.8]); <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04) and believing the GP to be the professional best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 1.5 [1.1, 2.2]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .01). Conversely, having children ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 0.6 [0.5, 0.9]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .002) and believing the police or emergency services to be the professionals best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 0.5 [0.3, 0.9]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .02) were factors associated with a negative opinion of systematic screening for all women. Women’s opinions about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care appear to be disparate. It would be worth investigating a possible lack of knowledge concerning the number of victims of intimate partner violence, and its repercussions on women’s health.","PeriodicalId":16289,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What French Women Think About Systematic Screening for Intimate Partner Violence by General Practitioners During Primary Care Consultations\",\"authors\":\"Yannick Pacquelet, Mathilde Vallet, Leïla Bouazzi, Marie Boiteux-Chabrier, Aline Hurtaud, Coralie Barbe\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08862605251357831\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since 2019, the French national health authority recommends that general practitioners (GPs) should perform systematic screening for intimate partner violence during consultations. To describe the opinions of French women about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care, and to identify factors associated with these opinions, a cross-sectional, observational study was performed among French women aged 18 years or over, using an ad hoc questionnaire about the role of the GP in screening for intimate partner violence disseminated on social networks. In total, 942 women responded (age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, 76.2% were in a relationship, 58.8% had children). Overall, 50.2% of participants were in favor of screening for intimate partner violence only in case of signs suggestive of violence, while 47.7% were in favor of systematic screening for all women, even in the absence of overt signs of violence, and 2.1% were not in favor of screening. The factors associated with a positive opinion of systematic screening for all women were as follows: working in the healthcare sector (odds ratio ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> ) = 1.3 (95% CI [1.01, 1.8]); <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .04) and believing the GP to be the professional best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 1.5 [1.1, 2.2]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .01). Conversely, having children ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 0.6 [0.5, 0.9]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .002) and believing the police or emergency services to be the professionals best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( <jats:italic>OR</jats:italic> = 0.5 [0.3, 0.9]; <jats:italic>p</jats:italic> = .02) were factors associated with a negative opinion of systematic screening for all women. Women’s opinions about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care appear to be disparate. It would be worth investigating a possible lack of knowledge concerning the number of victims of intimate partner violence, and its repercussions on women’s health.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16289,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interpersonal Violence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251357831\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interpersonal Violence","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605251357831","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2019年以来,法国国家卫生当局建议全科医生在咨询期间对亲密伴侣暴力进行系统筛查。为了描述法国女性对在初级保健中系统筛查亲密伴侣暴力的看法,并确定与这些观点相关的因素,我们在18岁或以上的法国女性中进行了一项横断面观察性研究,使用了一份关于全科医生在筛查社交网络上传播的亲密伴侣暴力中的作用的临时问卷。共有942名女性回应(年龄39.5±13.6岁,76.2%有伴侣,58.8%有孩子)。总体而言,50.2%的参与者赞成仅在有暴力迹象的情况下对亲密伴侣暴力进行筛查,而47.7%的人赞成对所有女性进行系统筛查,即使没有明显的暴力迹象,2.1%的人不赞成筛查。对所有妇女进行系统筛查持积极态度的相关因素如下:在医疗保健部门工作(优势比(OR) = 1.3 (95% CI [1.01, 1.8]);p = .04),并认为全科医生是最适合发现亲密伴侣暴力的专业人士(OR = 1.5 [1.1, 2.2];P = 0.01)。相反,有孩子(OR = 0.6 [0.5, 0.9];p = .002),并认为警察或紧急服务人员是最适合发现亲密伴侣暴力的专业人员(or = 0.5 [0.3, 0.9];P = .02)是对所有妇女进行系统筛查持否定态度的因素。妇女对在初级保健中系统筛查亲密伴侣暴力的意见似乎各不相同。值得调查的是,是否对亲密伴侣暴力的受害者人数及其对妇女健康的影响缺乏了解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
What French Women Think About Systematic Screening for Intimate Partner Violence by General Practitioners During Primary Care Consultations
Since 2019, the French national health authority recommends that general practitioners (GPs) should perform systematic screening for intimate partner violence during consultations. To describe the opinions of French women about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care, and to identify factors associated with these opinions, a cross-sectional, observational study was performed among French women aged 18 years or over, using an ad hoc questionnaire about the role of the GP in screening for intimate partner violence disseminated on social networks. In total, 942 women responded (age 39.5 ± 13.6 years, 76.2% were in a relationship, 58.8% had children). Overall, 50.2% of participants were in favor of screening for intimate partner violence only in case of signs suggestive of violence, while 47.7% were in favor of systematic screening for all women, even in the absence of overt signs of violence, and 2.1% were not in favor of screening. The factors associated with a positive opinion of systematic screening for all women were as follows: working in the healthcare sector (odds ratio ( OR ) = 1.3 (95% CI [1.01, 1.8]); p = .04) and believing the GP to be the professional best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( OR = 1.5 [1.1, 2.2]; p = .01). Conversely, having children ( OR = 0.6 [0.5, 0.9]; p = .002) and believing the police or emergency services to be the professionals best placed to detect intimate partner violence ( OR = 0.5 [0.3, 0.9]; p = .02) were factors associated with a negative opinion of systematic screening for all women. Women’s opinions about systematic screening for intimate partner violence in primary care appear to be disparate. It would be worth investigating a possible lack of knowledge concerning the number of victims of intimate partner violence, and its repercussions on women’s health.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
12.00%
发文量
375
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interpersonal Violence is devoted to the study and treatment of victims and perpetrators of interpersonal violence. It provides a forum of discussion of the concerns and activities of professionals and researchers working in domestic violence, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual assault, physical child abuse, and violent crime. With its dual focus on victims and victimizers, the journal will publish material that addresses the causes, effects, treatment, and prevention of all types of violence. JIV only publishes reports on individual studies in which the scientific method is applied to the study of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Research may use qualitative or quantitative methods. JIV does not publish reviews of research, individual case studies, or the conceptual analysis of some aspect of interpersonal violence. Outcome data for program or intervention evaluations must include a comparison or control group.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信