Article

Intimate Partner Violence and Cancer Screening among Urban Minority Women

Department of Family Medicine, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey-New Jersey Medical School, Newark.
The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine (Impact Factor: 1.85). 05/2010; 23(3):343-53. DOI: 10.3122/jabfm.2010.03.090124
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To evaluate the association of intimate partner violence (IPV) with breast and cervical cancer screening rates.
We conducted retrospective chart audits of 382 adult women at 4 urban family medicine practices. Inclusion criteria were not being pregnant, no cancer history, and having a partner. Victims were defined as those who screened positive on at least one of 2 brief IPV screening tools: the HITS (Hurt, Insult, Threat, Scream) tool or Women Abuse Screening Tool (short). Logistic regression models were used to examine whether nonvictims, victims of emotional abuse, and victims of physical and/or sexual abuse were up to date for mammograms and Papanicolaou smears.
Prevalence of IPV was 16.5%. Compared with victims of emotional abuse only, victims of physical and/or sexual abuse aged 40 to 74 were associated with 87% decreased odds of being up to date on Papanicolaou smears (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.02-0.86) and 84% decreased odds of being up to date in mammography (odds ratio, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.03-0.99). There was no difference in Papanicolaou smear rates among female victims and nonvictims younger than 40.
Because of the high prevalence of IPV, screening is essential among all women. Clinicians should ensure that victims of physical and/or sexual abuse are screened for cervical cancer and breast cancer, particularly women aged 40 or older. Cancer screening promotion programs are needed for victims of abuse.

1 Follower
 · 
66 Views
  • Journal of pain and symptom management 08/2013; 47(4). DOI:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.05.018 · 2.74 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Millions of women in the United States experience physical abuse because of intimate partner violence (IPV) that results in injuries, social and family dysfunction, mental health disorders, chronic pain and illness, and death. Cancer causes a quarter of the deaths of women in the United States. When IPV and a cancer diagnosis intersect, a special population of women with unique needs is created. The purpose of the current study was to determine the rates of IPV and the types of cancer reported by women seeking services for IPV. Safety, community agency use, severity of violence, danger, psychological distress, post-traumatic stress disorder, self-efficacy, social support, pain, and marginality also were assessed. Three hundred abused women were interviewed in person to determine their health, safety, and functioning. Of the 300 women, eight reported receiving a cancer diagnosis, and most of those women had cervical cancer. The prevalence of cervical cancer reported by abused women was 10 times higher than the general population. Higher danger scores and risk for revictimization were reported. Increased awareness of the potential connection between IPV and cancer is needed, and evidence-based strategies that promote IPV screening in the oncology setting should be developed.
    Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 02/2014; 18(1):65-73. DOI:10.1188/14.CJON.65-73
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) is defined as physical, sexual, or psychological harm that can be perpetrated by a former/current spouse. IPV has been linked to adverse health outcomes and risky behaviors, and victims of IPV tend to need more healthcare overall than nonvictims of IPV. The purpose of this study was to determine the association between IPV and preventive screening among women. Methods: The study used data from eight states/territories, which collected IPV information in the 2006 and 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (n=30,182). IPV and preventive screening for HIV, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, cholesterol, and breast cancer were determined by self-report. Multivariable logistic regression models provided adjusted estimates of odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Approximately one in four women reported a history of lifetime IPV. Relative to those who did not report a history of IPV, IPV victims were twice as likely to have had an HIV test (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 2.06 to 2.66) or a breast exam (aOR: 1.76; 95% CI: 1.37 to 2.27). IPV victims are vigilant about certain screening practices related to sexual health (HIV testing) and passive screening (breast exam) compared to active screening. Conclusion: The strongest association between IPV and preventive screening was seen for HIV testing, which likely reflects the women's perceived risk for HIV infection. That these women are in contact with the healthcare system provides support for recommendations for widespread adoption of IPV screening and counseling.
    Journal of Women's Health 06/2013; 22(11). DOI:10.1089/jwh.2012.4222 · 1.90 Impact Factor