↓ Skip to main content

A nurse-delivered, clinic-based intervention to address intimate partner violence among low-income women in Mexico City: findings from a cluster randomized controlled trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A nurse-delivered, clinic-based intervention to address intimate partner violence among low-income women in Mexico City: findings from a cluster randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0880-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jhumka Gupta, Kathryn L. Falb, Oriana Ponta, Ziming Xuan, Paola Abril Campos, Annabel Arellano Gomez, Jimena Valades, Gisele Cariño, Claudia Diaz Olavarrieta

Abstract

Rigorous evaluations of health sector interventions addressing intimate partner violence (IPV) in low- and middle-income countries are lacking. We aimed to assess whether an enhanced nurse-delivered intervention would reduce IPV and improve levels of safety planning behaviors, use of community resources, reproductive coercion, and mental quality of life. We randomized 42 public health clinics in Mexico City to treatment or control arms. In treatment clinics, women received the nurse-delivered session (IPV screening, supportive referrals, health/safety risk assessments) at baseline (T1), and a booster counselling session after 3 months (T2). In control clinics, women received screening and a referral card from nurses. Surveys were conducted at T1, T2, and T3 (15 months from baseline). Our main outcome was past-year physical and sexual IPV. Intent-to-treat analyses were conducted via three-level random intercepts models to evaluate the interaction term for treatment status by time. Between April and October 2013, 950 women (480 in control clinics, 470 in treatment clinics) with recent IPV experiences enrolled in the study. While reductions in IPV were observed for both women enrolled in treatment (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55; P < 0.01) and control (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.36-0.72; P < 0.01) clinics at T3 (July to December 2014), no significant treatment effects were observed (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.24; P = 0.30). At T2 (July to December 2013), women in treatment clinics reported significant improvements, compared to women in control clinics, in mental quality of life (β, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.14-2.75; P = 0.03) and safety planning behaviors (β, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.02-0.79; P = 0.04). While reductions in IPV levels were seen among women in both treatment and control clinics, the enhanced nurse intervention was no more effective in reducing IPV. The enhanced nursing intervention may offer short-term improvements in addressing safety planning and mental quality of life. Nurses can play a supportive role in assisting women with IPV experiences. Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT01661504 ). Registration Date: August 2, 2012.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 134 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 19 14%
Student > Master 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 9%
Other 19 14%
Unknown 31 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 36 27%
Social Sciences 21 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 13%
Psychology 14 10%
Unspecified 5 4%
Other 8 6%
Unknown 33 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 July 2017.
All research outputs
#6,579,433
of 11,483,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,592
of 1,837 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#125,741
of 258,860 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#39
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,483,620 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,837 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.0. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,860 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.