↓ Skip to main content

A web-based intervention for abused women: the New Zealand isafe randomised controlled trial protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
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 web-based intervention for abused women: the New Zealand isafe randomised controlled trial protocol
Published in
BMC Public Health, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1395-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jane Koziol-McLain, Alain C Vandal, Shyamala Nada-Raja, Denise Wilson, Nancy E Glass, Karen B Eden, Christine McLean, Terry Dobbs, James Case

Abstract

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) and its associated negative mental health consequences are significant for women in New Zealand and internationally. One of the most widely recommended interventions is safety planning. However, few women experiencing violence access specialist services for safety planning. A safety decision aid, weighing the dangers of leaving or staying in an abusive relationships, gives women the opportunity to prioritise, plan and take action to increase safety for themselves and their children. This randomised controlled trial is testing the effectiveness of an innovative, interactive web-based safety decision aid. The trial is an international collaborative concurrent replication of a USA trial (IRIS study NCT01312103), regionalised for the Aotearoa New Zealand culture and offers fully automated online trial recruitment, eligibility screening and consent.Methods/DesignIn a fully automated web-based trial (isafe) 340 abused women will be randomly assigned in equal numbers to a safety decision aid intervention or usual safety planning control website. Intervention components include: (a) safety priority setting, (b) danger assessment and (c) an individually tailored safety action plan. Self-reported outcome measures are collected at baseline and 3, 6, and 12-months post-baseline.Primary outcomes are depression (measured by Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Revised) and IPV exposure (measured by Severity Violence Against Women Scale) at 12 months post-baseline. Secondary outcomes include PTSD, psychological abuse, decisional conflict, safety behaviors and danger in the relationship.DiscussionThis trial will provide much-needed information on the potential relationships among safety planning, improved mental health, reduced violence as well as decreased decisional conflict related to safety in the abusive relationship. The novel web-based safety decision aid intervention may provide a cost-effective, easily accessed safety-planning resource that can be translated into clinical and community practice by multiple health disciplines and advocates. The trial will also provide information about how women in abusive relationships safely access safety information and resources through the Internet. Finally, the trial will inform other research teams on the feasibility and acceptability of fully automated recruitment, eligibility screening, consent and retention procedures.Trial registrationTrial registered on 03 July 2012 on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612000708853.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Student > Master 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 34 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Social Sciences 11 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 36 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,774,295
of 25,161,628 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#10,527
of 16,809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#183,833
of 365,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#138
of 222 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,161,628 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 16,809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 365,446 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 222 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.