At least one in seven homicides around the world is perpetrated by intimate partners. The danger of intimate partner homicide (IPH) associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) has led to the development of numerous IPV reassault and IPH risk assessment tools. Using 18 electronic databases and research repositories, we conducted a systematic review of IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment instruments. After review, 43 studies reported in 42 articles met inclusion criteria. We systematically extracted, analyzed, and synthesized data on tools studied, sample details, data collection location, study design, analysis methods, validity, reliability, and feasibility of use. Findings indicate that researchers in eight countries have tested 18 distinct IPH or IPV reassault risk assessment tools. The tools are designed for various professionals including law enforcement, first responders, and social workers. Twenty-six studies focused on assessing the risk of male perpetrators, although eight included female perpetrators. Eighteen studies tested tools with people in mixed-sex relationships, though many studies did not explicitly report the gender of both the perpetrators and victims/survivors. The majority of studies were administered or coded by researchers rather than administered in real-world settings. Reliable and valid instruments that accurately and feasibly assess the risk of IPH and IPV reassault in community settings are necessary for improving public safety and reducing violent deaths. Although researchers have developed several instruments assessing different risk factors, systematic research on the feasibility of using these instruments in practice settings is lacking.

No abstract

Health care providers (HCPs) who directly interact with women play a critical role in intimate partner violence (IPV) prevention and response. The aim of this study was to identify the structural and interpersonal barriers to IPV response among HCPs working in public health clinics in Santo André, Brazil. Eligible participants included all HCPs providing direct care to individuals at three public health clinics. Participants self-administered an adapted Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices survey on IPV. Data were analyzed using Epi Info 7 and SAS 9.4. 114 HCPs completed surveys. Less than half of HCPs (41%, n = 34) reported ever having asked a woman about abuse in the past year. HCPs who perceived fewer barriers were more likely to report asking about IPV. The top three reported barriers to asking women about IPV included the following: few opportunities for one-on-one interaction (77%, n = 65), a lack of privacy (71%, n = 60), and fear of offending women (71%, n = 60). Fewer providers who perceived the barriers of lack of privacy asked about IPV (50.8%, n = 33 compared with 84.2%, n = 16; p < .05); less providers who perceived few opportunities for private patient interactions asked about IPV (48.3%, n = 29 compared with 75.0%, n = 18; p < .05). Our results support the need for a systems approach of institution-wide reforms altering the health care environment and avoiding missed opportunities in IPV screening and referring women to appropriate resources or care. Two of the most frequently reported barriers to asking IPV were structural in nature, pointing to the need for policies that protect privacy and confidentiality. Within the Brazilian context, our research highlights the role of HCPs in the design and implementation of IPV interventions that both strengthen health systems and enable providers to address IPV.

Purpose: To compare the strategy for mild stimulation IVF versus conventional stimulation IVF. Methods: A decision tree analytic model was created to compare IVF with mild stimulation versus convention stimulation in infertile women <38 years of age to evaluate which strategy is the least costly per live birth. Results: Using base-case estimates of costs and probabilities in women <38 years old with unexplained infertility, the cumulative live birth rate in the mild versus conventional stimulation group was 15.8% versus 28.6%, respectively. The average cost for mild and convention IVF was $8789 and $14,364 per arm, respectively. In base case analysis, the ICER was $43,516 representing the additional cost per live birth with conventional IVF. One-way sensitivity analysis evaluated the robustness of the data and revealed a tradeoff in which mild IVF stimulation had lower total costs and also lower live births versus conventional stimulation. Conclusions: Mild stimulation IVF has a lower cost per cycle but is also associated with lower live birth rates. Patient care decisions should be individualized irrespective of cost.

Women appear willing to respond to a survey regarding a recent stillbirth. Further studies of the expansion of PRAMS to include stillbirth are warranted.