File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: Safety-promoting behaviors of community-dwelling abused Chinese women after an advocacy intervention: A randomized controlled trial

TitleSafety-promoting behaviors of community-dwelling abused Chinese women after an advocacy intervention: A randomized controlled trial
Authors
KeywordsAbused women
Chinese
Domestic violence
Randomized controlled trial
Safety
Issue Date2012
PublisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijnurstu
Citation
International Journal Of Nursing Studies, 2012, v. 49 n. 6, p. 645-655 How to Cite?
AbstractObjective: To examine the effect of an advocacy intervention on the use of safety-promoting behaviors in community-dwelling abused Chinese women as compared to a control condition of usual care. Design: This efficacy trial used a randomized controlled, parallel group design. Participants and methods: A total of 200 Chinese women in a community setting who screened positive for intimate partner violence using the Chinese version of the Abuse Assessment Screen were randomized to receive either an advocacy intervention (intervention group, . n=. 100) or usual community care (control group, . n=. 100). The outcome measured was the change in the self-reported safety-promoting behaviors as measured by the Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist over three time-points (baseline, 3-month follow-up and 9-month follow-up). Participants and assessors were blinded to the study hypothesis. Assessors were further blinded to the group membership of the participants. Results: The Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist scores in the intervention group increased from the baseline on average by 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92-6.39) at 3-month and 6.65 (95% CI, 5.90-7.39) at 9-month follow-ups, while the scores in the control group also increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.37) at 3-month and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.15-2.43) at 9-month follow-ups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the between-group differences in scores were significant at 3-month and 9-month follow-ups (. p=. 0.04). The intervention group increased the scores by 3.61 (95% CI, 2.61-4.61, . p<. 0.001) more than the control group at 3-month and by 4.53 (95% CI, 3.53-5.53, . p<. 0.001) at 9-month follow-ups. Conclusion: An advocacy intervention is efficacious in increasing the use of safety-promoting behaviors as compared to usual community care in community-dwelling abused Chinese women. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/160362
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 3.561
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.526
ISI Accession Number ID
References

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorTiwari, Aen_HK
dc.contributor.authorFong, DYTen_HK
dc.contributor.authorWong, JYHen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYuen, KHen_HK
dc.contributor.authorYuk, Hen_HK
dc.contributor.authorPang, Pen_HK
dc.contributor.authorHumphreys, Jen_HK
dc.contributor.authorBullock, Len_HK
dc.date.accessioned2012-08-16T06:08:51Z-
dc.date.available2012-08-16T06:08:51Z-
dc.date.issued2012en_HK
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal Of Nursing Studies, 2012, v. 49 n. 6, p. 645-655en_HK
dc.identifier.issn0020-7489en_HK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/160362-
dc.description.abstractObjective: To examine the effect of an advocacy intervention on the use of safety-promoting behaviors in community-dwelling abused Chinese women as compared to a control condition of usual care. Design: This efficacy trial used a randomized controlled, parallel group design. Participants and methods: A total of 200 Chinese women in a community setting who screened positive for intimate partner violence using the Chinese version of the Abuse Assessment Screen were randomized to receive either an advocacy intervention (intervention group, . n=. 100) or usual community care (control group, . n=. 100). The outcome measured was the change in the self-reported safety-promoting behaviors as measured by the Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist over three time-points (baseline, 3-month follow-up and 9-month follow-up). Participants and assessors were blinded to the study hypothesis. Assessors were further blinded to the group membership of the participants. Results: The Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist scores in the intervention group increased from the baseline on average by 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92-6.39) at 3-month and 6.65 (95% CI, 5.90-7.39) at 9-month follow-ups, while the scores in the control group also increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.37) at 3-month and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.15-2.43) at 9-month follow-ups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the between-group differences in scores were significant at 3-month and 9-month follow-ups (. p=. 0.04). The intervention group increased the scores by 3.61 (95% CI, 2.61-4.61, . p<. 0.001) more than the control group at 3-month and by 4.53 (95% CI, 3.53-5.53, . p<. 0.001) at 9-month follow-ups. Conclusion: An advocacy intervention is efficacious in increasing the use of safety-promoting behaviors as compared to usual community care in community-dwelling abused Chinese women. © 2011 Elsevier Ltd.en_HK
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherPergamon. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ijnurstuen_HK
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Nursing Studiesen_HK
dc.subjectAbused womenen_HK
dc.subjectChineseen_HK
dc.subjectDomestic violenceen_HK
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trialen_HK
dc.subjectSafetyen_HK
dc.titleSafety-promoting behaviors of community-dwelling abused Chinese women after an advocacy intervention: A randomized controlled trialen_HK
dc.typeArticleen_HK
dc.identifier.emailTiwari, A: tiwari@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailFong, DYT: dytfong@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailWong, JYH: janetyh@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.emailYuen, KH: fkhyuen@hku.hken_HK
dc.identifier.authorityTiwari, A=rp00441en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityFong, DYT=rp00253en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityWong, JYH=rp01561en_HK
dc.identifier.authorityYuen, KH=rp00456en_HK
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2011.12.005en_HK
dc.identifier.pmid22227168-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-84861527370en_HK
dc.identifier.hkuros204146en_US
dc.relation.referenceshttp://www.scopus.com/mlt/select.url?eid=2-s2.0-84861527370&selection=ref&src=s&origin=recordpageen_HK
dc.identifier.volume49en_HK
dc.identifier.issue6en_HK
dc.identifier.spage645en_HK
dc.identifier.epage655en_HK
dc.identifier.eissn1873-491X-
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000310492400003-
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridTiwari, A=7101772273en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridFong, DYT=35261710300en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridWong, JYH=24537861500en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYuen, KH=8639606900en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridYuk, H=36239471600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridPang, P=36239151600en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridHumphreys, J=35511360800en_HK
dc.identifier.scopusauthoridBullock, L=7006740637en_HK
dc.identifier.citeulike10215387-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats