BACKGROUND: To better identify women at risk for intimate partner violence (IPV), we developed a diagnostic protocol composed of injury location and response to a verbal questionnaire to identify women at high risk for reporting an IPV-related injury etiology. The purpose of this study was to test the external validity of the protocol when applied at two institutions that differ considerably in terms of geography and socioeconomic measures.METHODS: A cross-sectional design was used at two demographically and geographically different hospitals, designated H1 and H2. The sample was composed of adult females age >or=18 years presenting to the emergency department (ED) for evaluation and management of nonverifiable traumatic injuries. The predictor variable was risk for reporting an IPV-related injury. Risk was categorized per the protocol as high or low. High-risk subjects had visible head, neck, or face (HNF) injuries and positive responses to the questionnaires. Low-risk subject had non-HNF injuries or negative responses to the screening questionnaires. The outcome variable was self-reported injury etiology classified as IPV-related or other. Descriptive and bivariate statistics and standard measurements for a diagnostic test were computed.RESULTS: The sample was composed of 400 subjects, with 200 subjects enrolled at each institution. Self-reported IPV was 34% and 9.5% at H1 and H2, respectively. The protocol classified 33% (H1) and 18% (H2) of subjects as high risk. Sensitivities were 90% (H1) and 74% (H2). Specificities were 96% (H1) and 88% (H2). Subjects classified per protocol as high-risk had an 18-fold (p < 0.01, H1) and 13-fold (p < 0.01, H2) increased risk for reporting IPV-related injuries.CONCLUSIONS: Despite significant geographic and socioeconomic differences between the two hospitals, the results suggest that our protocol may be applicable in disparate clinical settings.
Adolescent Adult