Screening and intervention for intimate partner violence at trauma centers and emergency departments: an evidence-based systematic review from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a serious public health issue with a substantial burden on society. Screening and intervention practices vary widely and there are no standard guidelines. Our objective was to review research on current practices for IPV prevention in emergency departments and trauma centers in the USA and provide evidenced-based recommendations. Methods: An evidence-based systematic review of the literature was conducted to address screening and intervention for IPV in adult trauma and emergency department patients. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology was used to determine the quality of evidence. Studies were included if they addressed our prespecified population, intervention, control, and outcomes questions. Case reports, editorials, and abstracts were excluded from review. Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. All seven were centered around screening for IPV; none addressed interventions when abuse was identified. Screening instruments varied across studies. Although it is unclear if one tool is more accurate than others, significantly more victims were identified when screening protocols were implemented compared with non-standardized approaches to identifying IPV victims. Conclusion: Overall, there were very limited data addressing the topic of IPV screening and intervention in emergency medical settings, and the quality of the evidence was low. With likely low risk and a significant potential benefit, we conditionally recommend implementation of a screening protocol to identify victims of IPV in adults treated in the emergency department and trauma centers. Although the purpose of screening would ultimately be to provide resources for victims, no studies that assessed distinct interventions met our inclusion criteria. Therefore, we cannot make specific recommendations related to IPV interventions. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020219517.

Correction: An Alternative to the Light Touch Digital Health Remote Study: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/32165.].

An Alternative to the Light Touch Digital Health Remote Study: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study.

BACKGROUND: Several app-based studies share similar characteristics of a light touch approach that recruit, enroll, and onboard via a smartphone app and attempt to minimize burden through low-friction active study tasks while emphasizing the collection of passive data with minimal human contact. However, engagement is a common challenge across these studies, reporting low retention and adherence. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe an alternative to a light touch digital health study that involved a participant-centric design including high friction app-based assessments, semicontinuous passive data from wearable sensors, and a digital engagement strategy centered on providing knowledge and support to participants. METHODS: The Stress and Recovery in Frontline COVID-19 Health Care Workers Study included US frontline health care workers followed between May and November 2020. The study comprised 3 main components: (1) active and passive assessments of stress and symptoms from a smartphone app, (2) objective measured assessments of acute stress from wearable sensors, and (3) a participant codriven engagement strategy that centered on providing knowledge and support to participants. The daily participant time commitment was an average of 10 to 15 minutes. Retention and adherence are described both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: A total of 365 participants enrolled and started the study, and 81.0% (n=297) of them completed the study for a total study duration of 4 months. Average wearable sensor use was 90.6% days of total study duration. App-based daily, weekly, and every other week surveys were completed on average 69.18%, 68.37%, and 72.86% of the time, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence for the feasibility and acceptability of a participant-centric digital health study approach that involved building trust with participants and providing support through regular phone check-ins. In addition to high retention and adherence, the collection of large volumes of objective measured data alongside contextual self-reported subjective data was able to be collected, which is often missing from light touch digital health studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04713111; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04713111.