HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2005.085357v1 97/7/1319    most recent Submit a response Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Coker, A. L. Articles by Williams, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Coker, A. L. Articles by Williams, M. Related Collections Epidemiology Injury/Emergency Care/Violence Rural Health Screening Women's Health

Ann L. Coker, PhD, Vicki C. Flerx, PhD, Paige H. Smith, PhD, Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Mary Kay Fadden, MPH and Melinda Williams, BA

Ann L. Coker is with the Health Science Center, School of Public Health, University of Texas, Houston. Vicki C. Flerx is with the Institute for Families in Society, University of South Carolina, Columbia. Paige H. Smith is with the Center for Women’s Health and Wellness, University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Daniel J. Whitaker and Melinda Williams are with the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Mary Kay Fadden is with the School of Public Health, University of Texas–Houston, Brownsville.

Correspondence: Requests for reprints should be sent to Ann L. Coker, PhD, University of Texas, School of Public Health, Discipline of Epidemiology, 1200 Herman Pressler, Houston, TX 77030 (e-mail: Ann.l.Coker{at}uth.tmc.edu).

Objectives. We sought to determine the frequency of intimate partner violence by type in a large, clinic-based, nurse-administered screening and services intervention project.

Methods. A brief intimate partner violence screen, which included items to measure sexual and physical assaults and psychological battering (using the Women’s Experience With Battering scale) was administered to consenting women receiving care at 1 of 8 rural clinics in South Carolina.

Results. Between April 2002 and August 2005, 4945 eligible women were offered intimate partner violence screening, to which 3664 (74.1%) consented. Prevalence of intimate partner violence in a current (ongoing) relationship was 13.3%, and 939 women (25.6%) had experienced intimate partner violence at some point in the past 5 years. Of those ever experiencing intimate partner violence, the majority (65.6%) experienced both assaults and psychological battering; 10.1% experienced assault only, and 24.3% experienced psychological battering only. Most women (85.5%) currently experiencing both psychological battering and assaults stated that violence was a problem in their current relationship.

Conclusions. The intimate partner violence screening technique we used was feasible to implement, acceptable to women seeking health care at the targeted clinics, and indicated a high proportion of women reporting intimate partner violence in the past 5 years, with a majority of those women stating that such violence was a problem in their relationships. These findings demonstrated the viability of the screening technique, which supports the growing importance of implementing intimate partner violence screenings in clinical settings in order to reduce the prevalence of violence in intimate relationships.