↓ 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

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 13%
Student > Bachelor 24 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 10%
Researcher 21 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 7%
Other 24 11%
Unknown 80 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 42 20%
Social Sciences 30 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 12%
Psychology 19 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 1%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 79 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 01 December 2021.
All research outputs
#7,287,103
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,574
of 3,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,933
of 312,615 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#39
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 312,615 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.