Examining the effect of residential change on intimate partner violence risk

Abstract Objectives: To examine the relationship between residential change and a woman’s subsequent risk of intimate partner violence (IPV), whether by a past or a new offender, a relationship that has not been prospectively examined to date. Design: A dynamic cohort of women who recently changed residence (movers) was compared with those who did not (non-movers) for 12-month risk of IPV by a past offender and of IPV by a new offender. Participants and methods: Secondary analysis of a linked, longitudinal National Crime Victimization Survey dataset including 10 754 recent movers and 10 236 non-movers among women aged 18–44 years. Results: The risk of IPV by either a past or a new offender was almost double for women who had recently moved compared with those who had not moved. This increased risk proved to be robust, as it persisted when the data were weighted and unweighted, and when the main effect was adjusted by measured covariates. Conclusions: The apparent increase in IPV risk after residential change may be a marker of a pre-existing problem or a precursor of subsequent problems. Unlike past research that has considered residential change after abuse or as a simultaneous exposure, this study focused solely on empirically measuring the risk of IPV after a recent move. This decision has important public health ramifications: determination of IPV exposure is not always possible, whereas soliciting a woman’s history of residence may be more feasible. If transience puts a woman at greater risk for victimisation by an intimate partner, increased awareness may have a vital role in protecting women who move

Computer-Administered Screening of Reproductive-Aged Women for Diabetes Risk in Primary Care Settings, Feasibility and Acceptability of Such Screening, and Validity of Risk Assessments Based on Self-reported Weight

Introduction Obesity, a major public health problem, is the key modifiable component of diabetes risk. Addressing obesity and diabetes risk during primary care visits is recommended but, because of time constraints, is often difficult for health care providers to do. The purpose of this study was to determine whether technology can streamline risk assessment and leave more time to educate patients. We also tested the validity of self-reported weight in assessing diabetes risk.Methods We recruited English-speaking women aged 18 to 44 years who came to a clinic for medical appointments from July through October 2003. Study participants completed a self-administered computer questionnaire that collected the following data: weight, height, family history of diabetes, level of exercise, amount of television time, and daily servings of fruits and vegetables. Self-reported and scale-measured weights were compared to determine the effect of self-reported weight on results of the American Diabetes Association’s Diabetes Risk Test (DRT). In determining the sensitivity and specificity of self-reported weight, we used scale measurements as the standard.Results Complete data were collected on 231 women, including 214 women without a history of a diabetes diagnosis. Compared with DRT results (determined by scale-measured weight), questionnaire results (determined by self-reported weight) had sensitivities of 93.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 85.2%–97.6%) for high risk for diabetes and 90.4% (95% CI, 83.3%–94.7%) for moderate risk. The specificity of the self-administered DRT for any diabetes risk was 97.8% (95% CI, 88.4%–99.6%). About half the women reported discussing nutrition and exercise with their health care providers.Conclusion Health care professionals can provide personalized diabetes education and counseling on the basis of information collected by self-administered computerized questionnaires. In general, patients provided a self-reported weight that did not substantially bias estimates of diabetes risk