Comparison of Modes of Administration of Screens to Identify a History of Childhood Physical Abuse in an Adolescent and Young Adult Population

Angela Diaz, Ken Peake, Anne Nucci-Sack, Shankar Viswanathan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Childhood physical abuse is a major public health issue with negative consequences to health and well-being manifested in childhood and adolescence, and persisting into adulthood. Yet much childhood physical abuse is not identified when it occurs and little is known about how to screen for it. Methods To address this gap, the effectiveness of 4 modes of administration of screens to identify childhood physical abuse were compared in a sample of 506 adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years seeking general health services at a primary care clinic. Comparisons were made between paper and pencil screen, audio computer-assisted self-interview screen, face-to-face structured screen (all 3 using the same measure), and face-to-face unstructured interview. Findings Overall, 44.5% of the sample disclosed that they had been physically abused. Compared to paper and pencil screen, the odds of reporting physical abuse were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 2.58) and 4.3 (95% CI: 2.49, 7.43) higher among participants using face-to-face structured screen and face-to-face unstructured interview methods, respectively. The face-to-face unstructured interview identified significantly more reports than the paper and pencil screen. Conclusions Although the unstructured interview was the most effective mode for screening for childhood physical abuse, additional research is needed to confirm whether this holds true in other health care settings. Further research should examine how a health provider's training, experience, and comfort level might influence the identification of physical abuse disclosure in primary care settings using face-to-face unstructured interview.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)726-734
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Global Health
Volume83
Issue number5-6
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2017

Fingerprint

Young Adult
Interviews
Population
Primary Health Care
Confidence Intervals
Health
Disclosure
Research
Health Services
Physical Abuse
Public Health
Delivery of Health Care

Keywords

  • adolescents
  • childhood physical abuse
  • mode of administration
  • screening tool
  • young adults

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparison of Modes of Administration of Screens to Identify a History of Childhood Physical Abuse in an Adolescent and Young Adult Population. / Diaz, Angela; Peake, Ken; Nucci-Sack, Anne; Viswanathan, Shankar.

In: Annals of Global Health, Vol. 83, No. 5-6, 01.09.2017, p. 726-734.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5ff0da36c8e2460b9ff2d4fa7ada24a1,
title = "Comparison of Modes of Administration of Screens to Identify a History of Childhood Physical Abuse in an Adolescent and Young Adult Population",
abstract = "Background Childhood physical abuse is a major public health issue with negative consequences to health and well-being manifested in childhood and adolescence, and persisting into adulthood. Yet much childhood physical abuse is not identified when it occurs and little is known about how to screen for it. Methods To address this gap, the effectiveness of 4 modes of administration of screens to identify childhood physical abuse were compared in a sample of 506 adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years seeking general health services at a primary care clinic. Comparisons were made between paper and pencil screen, audio computer-assisted self-interview screen, face-to-face structured screen (all 3 using the same measure), and face-to-face unstructured interview. Findings Overall, 44.5{\%} of the sample disclosed that they had been physically abused. Compared to paper and pencil screen, the odds of reporting physical abuse were 1.5 (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 2.58) and 4.3 (95{\%} CI: 2.49, 7.43) higher among participants using face-to-face structured screen and face-to-face unstructured interview methods, respectively. The face-to-face unstructured interview identified significantly more reports than the paper and pencil screen. Conclusions Although the unstructured interview was the most effective mode for screening for childhood physical abuse, additional research is needed to confirm whether this holds true in other health care settings. Further research should examine how a health provider's training, experience, and comfort level might influence the identification of physical abuse disclosure in primary care settings using face-to-face unstructured interview.",
keywords = "adolescents, childhood physical abuse, mode of administration, screening tool, young adults",
author = "Angela Diaz and Ken Peake and Anne Nucci-Sack and Shankar Viswanathan",
year = "2017",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.aogh.2017.10.023",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "726--734",
journal = "Annals of Global Health",
issn = "0027-2507",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5-6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of Modes of Administration of Screens to Identify a History of Childhood Physical Abuse in an Adolescent and Young Adult Population

AU - Diaz, Angela

AU - Peake, Ken

AU - Nucci-Sack, Anne

AU - Viswanathan, Shankar

PY - 2017/9/1

Y1 - 2017/9/1

N2 - Background Childhood physical abuse is a major public health issue with negative consequences to health and well-being manifested in childhood and adolescence, and persisting into adulthood. Yet much childhood physical abuse is not identified when it occurs and little is known about how to screen for it. Methods To address this gap, the effectiveness of 4 modes of administration of screens to identify childhood physical abuse were compared in a sample of 506 adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years seeking general health services at a primary care clinic. Comparisons were made between paper and pencil screen, audio computer-assisted self-interview screen, face-to-face structured screen (all 3 using the same measure), and face-to-face unstructured interview. Findings Overall, 44.5% of the sample disclosed that they had been physically abused. Compared to paper and pencil screen, the odds of reporting physical abuse were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 2.58) and 4.3 (95% CI: 2.49, 7.43) higher among participants using face-to-face structured screen and face-to-face unstructured interview methods, respectively. The face-to-face unstructured interview identified significantly more reports than the paper and pencil screen. Conclusions Although the unstructured interview was the most effective mode for screening for childhood physical abuse, additional research is needed to confirm whether this holds true in other health care settings. Further research should examine how a health provider's training, experience, and comfort level might influence the identification of physical abuse disclosure in primary care settings using face-to-face unstructured interview.

AB - Background Childhood physical abuse is a major public health issue with negative consequences to health and well-being manifested in childhood and adolescence, and persisting into adulthood. Yet much childhood physical abuse is not identified when it occurs and little is known about how to screen for it. Methods To address this gap, the effectiveness of 4 modes of administration of screens to identify childhood physical abuse were compared in a sample of 506 adolescents and young adults aged 12-24 years seeking general health services at a primary care clinic. Comparisons were made between paper and pencil screen, audio computer-assisted self-interview screen, face-to-face structured screen (all 3 using the same measure), and face-to-face unstructured interview. Findings Overall, 44.5% of the sample disclosed that they had been physically abused. Compared to paper and pencil screen, the odds of reporting physical abuse were 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 2.58) and 4.3 (95% CI: 2.49, 7.43) higher among participants using face-to-face structured screen and face-to-face unstructured interview methods, respectively. The face-to-face unstructured interview identified significantly more reports than the paper and pencil screen. Conclusions Although the unstructured interview was the most effective mode for screening for childhood physical abuse, additional research is needed to confirm whether this holds true in other health care settings. Further research should examine how a health provider's training, experience, and comfort level might influence the identification of physical abuse disclosure in primary care settings using face-to-face unstructured interview.

KW - adolescents

KW - childhood physical abuse

KW - mode of administration

KW - screening tool

KW - young adults

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85034044194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85034044194&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.aogh.2017.10.023

DO - 10.1016/j.aogh.2017.10.023

M3 - Article

VL - 83

SP - 726

EP - 734

JO - Annals of Global Health

JF - Annals of Global Health

SN - 0027-2507

IS - 5-6

ER -