ReviewJournal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing2026
A Decision-Making Framework for Selecting Intimate Partner Violence Measures in Health Research.
Review in Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMeasuring intimate partner violence (IPV) remains a challenge in health research due to the wide range of available measures, with each designed for different purposes, populations, and types of violence. Selecting the most appropriate IPV measure requires careful alignment with a study's overall goals while balancing conceptual, ethical, and pragmatic considerations.
objectivesTo introduce a decision-making framework to guide researchers in selecting IPV measures for use in health-focused research.
methodsA targeted review was completed to identify all published systematic reviews focused on IPV measures. Using a consensus-driven approach, systematic reviews were appraised to determine the criteria and characteristics most commonly used to categorize and evaluate measures. A set of commonly recurring measurement characteristics was identified across reviews, including shared challenges in IPV measurement.
resultsWe identified six domains characterizing variation across IPV measures, including: purpose, populations, types of violence, time frame, context, and data collection methods. Some reviews considered additional characteristics including psychometric evidence and cultural relevance. Others discussed practical considerations, such as language availability and respondent burden. Based on these findings, we developed a decision-making framework and accompanying checklist designed to support researchers in evaluating the fit and appropriateness between available IPV measures and the specific aims, populations, and contextual considerations of their studies.
conclusionsStructured guidance that draws on the broader IPV field can support intentional and transparent decision-making, improving the quality and fit of IPV measurement. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The proposed framework, along with the IPV measure checklist, supports both researchers and clinicians in selecting the strongest IPV measure for their study. By offering structured guidance on navigating the wide variety of available IPV measures, this framework supports more consistent, interpretable, and methodologically rigorous IPV measurement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.