Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Violence against women: integrating the evidence into clinical practice

Harriet L. MacMillan and C. Nadine Wathen
CMAJ September 16, 2003 169 (6) 570-571;
Harriet L. MacMillan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
C. Nadine Wathen
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Violence against women is common and is associated with major physical and psychological impairment.1,2 Along with recognition of woman abuse as a serious public health problem3,4 has come the call for clinicians to find ways to identify and help their abused female patients.

However, before advising physicians to screen routinely for woman abuse, we must first establish that screening does more good than harm. Two key elements must be considered: does the screening identify the target condition (in this case exposure to or risk of violence in women) and does the subsequent “treatment” intervention, be it some form of counselling or referral to local services, lead to a favourable outcome (i.e., reduction of violence)?

The first question is easily answered. Several screening instruments with acceptable psychometric properties are available to detect violence against women, including brief forms for use in primary and emergency care settings and for pregnant women.

For the second question, there is a lack of good evidence to guide clinical decision-making, and no studies have linked screening to treatment intervention in a way that allows us to determine whether routine screening for violence against women does more good than harm.5

The broad range of programs that are being recommended to reduce violence against women, including primary care counselling, referral to shelters and referral to personal and vocational counselling, have not been sufficiently evaluated to determine their effectiveness in reducing violence.6 In terms of batterer treatment, the only high-quality study using a randomized controlled design7 found no difference in abuse outcomes between the treatment groups (group sessions for men alone, sessions with their partners or rigorous monitoring) and the control group. Because this study was conducted with a sample of United States Navy couples, the results cannot necessarily be applied to the general population. In contrast, several other studies of lesser quality have suggested that such interventions for batterers are effective. The evidence remains conflicting.

The only program for which there is some evidence of effectiveness in reducing violence, a structured program of advocacy services, is specific to women who are leaving a woman abuse shelter.8 The study evaluating the program did not address the issue of screening (as women in the study were not screened) nor the question of whether going to a shelter itself is beneficial in reducing subsequent abuse; indeed at least one study9 has suggested that women seeking immediate safety in shelters may be exposed to reprisal violence once they leave the shelter. In sum, if violence against women is identified through primary care screening, no intervention to which women can be referred has been shown to be effective in reducing that violence.

For these reasons, and because the potential harms of screening and treatment have also not been sufficiently evaluated, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) has concluded that there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for violence against women and for referral to counselling or to shelters (see page 582).10 This differs from several existing guidelines,11,12,13,14 but not from more recent evidence-based examinations of this issue.15

Given the insufficient evidence for screening for abuse, should primary care practitioners ask women about exposure to or risk of violence? The answer to this difficult question depends on many factors unique to each clinical encounter. These include what services might be available in the community as well as the woman's specific situation, including the severity of abuse, her immediate concerns regarding her own safety and that of her children, and her own assessment of the benefits and risks of disclosing abuse — for example, whether she currently feels able to seek help or whether she fears reprisal violence from her abuser if she decides to do so. The clinician should maintain a degree of awareness about the issue of family violence and be sensitive to clinical signs and symptoms associated with abuse (for excellent summaries of such manifestations see Ferris and colleagues3 and Campbell16).

It is also necessary to distinguish between routine universal screening of all women, which “implies a standardized assessment of patients, regardless of their reasons for seeking medical attention”17 (p. 551), and diagnostic assessment (medical or psychiatric), which involves asking patients presenting with specific signs or symptoms about abuse. Despite the lack of evidence to support routine screening, the CTFPHC concluded that the prevalence of and significant impairment associated with violence against women make it important for clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion when assessing patients. Furthermore, not asking women about exposure to violence during certain diagnostic assessments (e.g., investigation of chronic pain) may lead to misdiagnosis and a path of inappropriate investigations or treatments that will not address the underlying problem.17 For a discussion of approaches to asking about woman abuse and subsequent management, we recommend A Handbook Dealing with Woman Abuse and the Canadian Criminal Justice System: Guidelines for Physicians.3 Details about indicators of risk for violence against women can be found in Table 1 of the systematic review detailing the evidence base for the CTFPHC's recommendations.5

Until we can determine whether the potential benefits of routine screening for woman abuse outweigh the potential harms, the best course of action for primary health care providers is to be alert for the signs and symptoms of abuse, and to question women about this issue if it might be related to a clinical problem. Fortunately, studies funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Ontario Women's Health Council are underway to provide evidence to answer this question.

𝛃 See related article page 582

Footnotes

  • Contributors: Dr. MacMillan drafted the article and reviewed subsequent revisions. Ms. Wathen critically reviewed the article and made subsequent revisions.

    Acknowledgements: This work has been supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Institute of Gender and Health, of Aging, of Human Development, Child and Youth Health, of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction, and of Population and Public Health. Dr. MacMillan is supported by the Wyeth Canada CIHR Clinical Research Chair in Women's Mental Health.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Chalk R, King P, editors. Violence in families: assessing prevention and treatment programs. Washington: National Academy Press; 1998.
  2. 2.↵
    Family violence in Canada: a statistical profile 2000. Ottawa: Statistics Canada. Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics; 2000. Cat no 85-224-XIE.
  3. 3.↵
    Ferris LE, Nurani A, Silver L. A handbook dealing with woman abuse and the Canadian criminal justice system: guidelines for physicians. Ottawa: National Clearinghouse on Family Violence; 1999. Available: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/physician/english/inside_cover.htm (accessed 2003 Aug 13).
  4. 4.↵
    Nuttall SE, Greaves LJ, Lent B. Wife battering: an emerging problem in public health. Can J Public Health 1985;76(5):297-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Prevention and treatment of violence against women: systematic review and recommendations [Technical report 01-4]. London (ON): The Task Force; 2001. Available: www.ctfphc.org/Sections/Domestic_violence.htm (accessed 2003 Aug 13).
  6. 6.↵
    Wathen CN, MacMillan HL. Interventions for violence against women: scientific review. JAMA 2003;289(5):589-600.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    Dunford FW. The San Diego Navy experiment: an assessment of interventions for men who assault their wives. J Consult Clin Psychol 2000;68(3):468-76.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    Sullivan CM, Bybee DI. Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67(1):43-53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    Berk RA, Newton PJ, Berk SF. What a difference a day makes: an empirical study of the impact of shelters for battered women. J Marriage Fam 1986;48(3):481-90.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    Wathen CN, MacMillan HL, with the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Prevention of violence against women: recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. CMAJ 2003;169(6): 582-4.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    American Medical Association, Council on Scientific Affairs. Violence against women: relevance for medical practitioners. JAMA 1992;267(23):3184-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. Violence against women. [Policy Statement 46]. Ottawa: The Society; 1996.
  13. 13.↵
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Domestic violence. [Technical Bulletin 209]. Washington: The College; 1995.
  14. 14.↵
    American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Child Abuse and Neglect. The role of the pediatrician in recognizing and intervening on behalf of abused women. Pediatrics 1998;101(6):1091-2.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    Ramsay J, Richardson J, Carter YH, Davidson LL, Feder G. Should health professionals screen women for domestic violence? Systematic review. BMJ 2002;325:314-27.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  16. 16.↵
    Campbell JC. Health consequences of intimate partner violence. Lancet 2002;359:1331-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    Cole TB. Is domestic violence screening helpful? JAMA 2000;284(5):551-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (6)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 6
16 Sep 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Violence against women: integrating the evidence into clinical practice
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Violence against women: integrating the evidence into clinical practice
Harriet L. MacMillan, C. Nadine Wathen
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (6) 570-571;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Violence against women: integrating the evidence into clinical practice
Harriet L. MacMillan, C. Nadine Wathen
CMAJ Sep 2003, 169 (6) 570-571;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • Prevention of violence against women: Recommendation statement from the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Taking action on the social determinants of health in clinical practice: a framework for health professionals
  • Practising sound medicine in the absence of evidence
  • Practising sound medicine in the absence of evidence
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • A “No More Waves” strategy for COVID-19 in Canada
  • The case for relaxing no-visitor policies in hospitals during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
  • Transforming race-based health research in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Sections
    • Guidelines
  • Topics
    • Women's health (including abortion)

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire