Intimate partner violence (IPV) around the time of pregnancy is a widespread global health problem with many negative consequences. Nevertheless, a lot remains unclear about which interventions are effective and might be adopted in the perinatal care context.
The objective is to provide a clear overview of the existing evidence on effectiveness of interventions for IPV around the time of pregnancy.
Following databases PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched and expanded by hand search. The search was limited to English peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials published from 2000 to 2013. This review includes all types of interventions aiming to reduce IPV around the time of pregnancy as a primary outcome, and as secondary outcomes to enhance physical and/or mental health, quality of life, safety behavior, help seeking behavior, and/or social support.
We found few randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for IPV around the time of pregnancy. Moreover, the nine studies identified did not produce strong evidence that certain interventions are effective. Nonetheless, home visitation programs and some multifaceted counseling interventions did produce promising results. Five studies reported a statistically significant decrease in physical, sexual and/or psychological partner violence (odds ratios from 0.47 to 0.92). Limited evidence was found for improved mental health, less postnatal depression, improved quality of life, fewer subsequent miscarriages, and less low birth weight/prematurity. None of the studies reported any evidence of a negative or harmful effect of the interventions.
Conclusions and implications
Strong evidence of effective interventions for IPV during the perinatal period is lacking, but some interventions show promising results. Additional large-scale, high-quality research is essential to provide further evidence about the effect of certain interventions and clarify which interventions should be adopted in the perinatal care context.
Citation: Van Parys A-S, Verhamme A, Temmerman M, Verstraelen H (2014) Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Interventions. PLoS ONE 9(1): e85084. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0085084
Editor: Sten H. Vermund, Vanderbilt University, United States of America
Received: July 16, 2013; Accepted: November 22, 2013; Published: January 17, 2014
Copyright: © 2014 Van Parys et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: ASVP received a PhD bursary for her studies from the Research Foundation Flanders (www.fwo.be, grant number 69579). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is increasingly recognized as a global health problem with crucial societal and clinical implications. IPV affects women and men from all backgrounds, regardless of age, ethnicity, socio-economic status, sexual orientation or religion –. IPV is defined as any behavior within a current or former intimate relationship that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm, including acts of physical aggression, sexual coercion, psychological abuse and controlling behaviors . It is sometimes referred to as domestic/family violence, spouse/partner abuse/assault, battering, violence against women or gender based violence. –.
Pregnancy and childbirth are major milestones in the lives of many couples and their families. The transition to parenthood brings joy as well as new challenges to couple relationships ,. Pregnancy can be a time of particular vulnerability to IPV because of changes in physical, emotional, social and economic demands and needs. This vulnerable period, however, is not limited to the time between conception and birth. Researchers have clearly demonstrated that the risk factors for IPV associated with pregnancy encompass the timeframe of one year before conception until one year after childbirth ,–.
A wide range of prevalence rates, from 3 to 30% of IPV around the time of pregnancy, has been reported. Prevalence rates in African and Latin American countries are mainly situated at the high end of the continuum and the European and Asian countries at the lower end. Although estimates within regions and countries are highly variable, the majority of studies show rates within the range of 3.9% to 8.7% ,. Most studies focus mainly on physical and/or sexual partner violence, while psychological violence remains difficult to delineate and measure. Although the exact prevalence of IPV around the time of pregnancy remains unclear, it is evident that it affects a substantial group of women. In fact, IPV during the perinatal period is more common than several maternal health conditions (e.g. pre-eclampsia, placenta praevia), nevertheless IPV receives considerably less attention within perinatal care ,,,.
In recent decades, research from the western world and increasingly from low and middle income countries  has generated growing evidence that violence is associated with detrimental effects on the physical and mental health of women, men and children . IPV is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes such as low birth weight, preterm delivery, infection, miscarriage/abortion, placental abruption, fetal injury and perinatal death. Adverse mental health consequences and behavioral risks including depression, anxiety disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, suicide (attempts), delayed entry into prenatal care, poor maternal nutrition and use of tobacco, alcohol and illicit drugs are consistently associated with IPV around the time of pregnancy ,,–. Most researchers and caregivers agree that perinatal care is an ideal ‘window of opportunity’ to address IPV, for it is often the only moment in the lives of many couples when there is regular contact with health care providers ,. There is a growing consensus that routine enquiry is a safe effective practice and an important first step in tackling IPV in general ,–. Nevertheless, a lot remains unclear about how to deal with IPV in the perinatal care context and which interventions should be adopted.
The objective of this paper is, therefore, to provide a clear overview of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of interventions for IPV for women (and their partners/children if the intervention involves them) during the perinatal period. This review surveys randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of all types of interventions aiming to reduce IPV, and/or enhance physical and/or mental health, Quality Of Life (QOL), safety behavior, help seeking behavior, and social support.
This systematic literature review was based on an extensive search in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The search was limited to peer-reviewed articles reporting results from RCTs published in English from 2000 to 2013. The searches were systematically updated during the writing process, the last update taking place in March 2013. The following search strategy was used in PubMed: “((“violence”[MeSH Terms] OR “violence”[All Fields]) AND (“pregnancy”[MeSH Terms] OR “pregnancy”[All Fields]) AND (“Intervention (Amstelveen)”[Journal] OR “Interv Sch Clin”[Journal] OR “intervention”[All Fields])) AND (Randomized Controlled Trial[ptyp] AND (“2000/01/01”[PDAT] : “2013/12/31”[PDAT]) AND “humans”[MeSH Terms])”. The search strategy for Web of Science was: “Topic = (violence) AND Topic = (pregnancy) Refined by: Topic = (intervention) AND Document Types = (ARTICLE) Timespan = 2000–2013. Databases = SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, CPCI-S, CPCI-SSH”.
We started our search in PubMed and applied the same strategy in Web of Science, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library. Reference lists of retrieved articles were checked and relevant articles were added by hand search. The database search was executed by two reviewers (ASVP & AV) independently, findings were discussed and differences resolved.
Figure 1 gives a detailed overview of the search strategy.
Several criteria for inclusion in the systematic review were applied.
First of all, the type of participants included in the studies for this review were pregnant women of any age and/or women who had given birth in the past year (plus their partners/children if the intervention involved them).
Second, the studies had to aim at evaluating some type of intervention for IPV. Peer-reviewed papers reporting on interventions only addressing non-partner violence, reproductive coercion, child abuse/neglect, parenting, teen pregnancies, substance abuse, and disclosure of IPV were therefore excluded. Publications were also examined to ensure that they did not display the same data set as that displayed in other articles.
Third, the primary outcome of the studies had to be any measure of IPV. The secondary outcomes were physical and/or psychosocial health (e.g. pregnancy and neonatal outcome, depression, anxiety, QOL, substance use, stress), help seeking behavior, safety behavior and social support.
Fourth, we included only published RCTs, regardless of the nature, intensity or duration of the intervention, length of follow-up, or country or setting in which the participants were recruited.
After full text evaluation, the risk of bias and the quality of the selected studies was assessed by two reviewers (ASVP & AV) separately, based on “The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias” . Key domains of this risk of bias assessment were sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting and ‘other issues’. The reviewers independently assessed risk of bias for each study and classified every study as low, high or unclear risk of bias. Final classifications and inclusion in this review were determined by consensus. For a detailed overview of the quality assessment, see Table 1: Characteristic of the included primary studies.
Using a specially designed data extraction form, the two reviewers independently extracted information from the selected papers. Data items compromised country, setting, sample size & participants, sampling methods, measuring tools, description of the intervention and control group(s), outcomes, and follow-up period. Authors were contacted if additional information was required.
Initially, we planned a meta-analysis to quantify and compare the interventions identified. Unfortunately it was not feasible to perform a meta-analysis due to the limited amount of data and the large variation in interventions, outcome measures and measurement time points.
The PRISMA guidelines were used as a framework for this review .
Through our electronic database search, we retrieved 412 potentially relevant articles based on keywords and limits set (60 in PubMed, 343 in Web of Science, seven in CINAHL and two in the Cochrane database). Fifteen additional articles were identified through hand search. After title and abstract evaluation, 69 duplicates were removed, leaving 343 to be included in the next step. Thereafter, out of 358 articles (343+15 articles retrieved through hand search) screening resulted in 17 articles deemed eligible for more detailed evaluation. After full text evaluation another eight were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, leaving nine studies submitted to critical appraisal and included in this systematic review ,–. Details on setting/participants, intervention/control activities and outcomes are given in Table 1: Characteristic of the included primary studies.
Out of these nine studies, six were conducted in the USA, one in Peru, one in Australia, and one in China. All studies recruited participants through hospital-based antenatal care, with sample sizes ranging from 50 to 1054 women.
Three studies measured the impact of a home visitation program involving paraprofessionals (non-professionals trained to do the home visits and deliver the intervention), mentor mothers (lay mothers trained to do the home visits, provide peer support and mentoring), and/or nurses and followed participants for between one up to nine years.
The six other studies evaluated the effect of some form of supportive counseling, varying from one 30-minute session up to six 60-minutes sessions or 24/7 access to a Nurse Case Manager (NCM). Most (n = 6) of the interventions were specifically designed to target IPV as the main objective, but some (n = 3) were part of a larger, multifaceted intervention in which IPV was one of the targets parallel to e.g. smoking, depression, child health, parenting. All studies compared the intervention to usual or standard care, which, due to ethical considerations, generally implied that patients were provided a referral card or a list of community resources.
Throughout the rest of this paper the term IPV will be used to refer to the combination of physical and sexual and psychological partner violence, unless specified otherwise.
Home visitation programs
After three years of program implementation Bair-Merritt et al.  found that, intervention women reported a lower, albeit statistically marginally non-significant, adjusted rate of IPV victimization [Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.86, 95% CI, 0.73–1.01] and a significantly lower rate of perpetration (IRR 0.83, 95% CI, 0.72–0.96) than the control group. Intervention women showed significantly lower rates of physical assault victimization (IRR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.71–1.00) and significantly lower perpetration (IRR 0.82, 95% CI, 0.70–0.96). Although rates of overall IPV victimization and perpetration were also lower after 9 years, these results were not statistically significant. In other words, perpetration rates decreased significantly and victimization rates showed a trend towards decrease after three years, but not after nine years.
Olds et al.  found on the one hand, no adjusted statistically significant effects of paraprofessional visits on the experience of physical partner violence in the intervention group (IG) versus the control group (CG) (14.2% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.88, OR 1.05, 95% CI not reported) in the six months prior to four year follow-up. On the other hand, nurse-visited women did report (6.9% vs. 13.6%, P = 0.05, OR 0.47, 95% CI not reported) a significant decrease in physical partner violence.
Taft et al.  reported evidence of a true difference in mean abuse scores at 12 months follow-up (15.9 vs. 21.8, AdjDiff −8.67, 95% CI, −16.2–−1.15, P = 0.03).
In the study of Olds et al. , women visited by paraprofessionals reported a statistically significant greater sense of mastery (101.25 vs. 99.31, P = 0.03) and better mental health (101.21 vs. 99.16, P = 0.03) than control subjects, had fewer subsequent miscarriages (6.6% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.04, OR 0.5, 95% CI not reported), and fewer low birth weight newborns (2.8% vs. 7.7%, P = 0.03, OR 0.34, 95% CI not reported). There were no statistically significant effects of nurse visits on these variables
Taft et al.  reported a trend favoring the intervention regarding depression (19/85 vs 14/43; AdjOR 0.42, 95% CI 0.17–1.06), physical wellbeing mean scores (AdjDiff 2.79, 95% CI, 0.40–5.99), and mental wellbeing mean scores (AdjDiff 2.26; 95% CI, 1.48–6) but no observed effect on parenting stress.
The women in the intervention group of Kiely et al.  experienced statistically significant fewer recurrent episodes of IPV during pregnancy and postpartum than women receiving usual care (adjOR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.29–0.80). Those with minor IPV were significantly less likely to experience further episodes during pregnancy (first follow-up 22–26 gestational weeks OR 0.48, 95% CI, 0.26–0.86; second follow-up 34–38 gestational weeks OR 0.53, 95% CI, 0.28–0.99) and postpartum (OR 0.56, 95% CI, 0.34–0.93). Those with severe IPV showed significantly reduced episodes only during postpartum (OR 0.39, 95% CI, 0.18–0.82). Women experiencing physical IPV showed a significant reduction in such violence at the first follow-up (OR 0.49, 95% CI, 0.27–0.91) and postpartum (OR 0.47, 95% CI, 0.27–0.82). For sexual IPV the intervention did not significantly reduce episodes of violence at any point in time.
Tiwari et al.  reported statistically significant less psychological [Mean Difference (MD) −1.1, 95% CI, −2.2 to −0.04)] (but not sexual) abuse and significantly less minor (MD −1.0, 95% CI, −1.8 to −0.17) (but not severe) physical violence in the intervention group.
Cripe et al.  reported no statistically significant differences in the occurrence of IPV between the intervention and control groups after an empowerment counseling session.
Curry et al.  did not report any results on IPV, nor were the authors able to provide the IPV data we requested.
Humphreys et al.  found no statistically significant differences in prevalence of physical and/or sexual partner violence between the two groups at baseline and did not report partner violence after intervention.
The intervention by Zlotnick et al.  did not significantly reduce the likelihood of IPV during pregnancy or up to three months postpartum.
Women in the IG of Kiely et al.  had significantly fewer very preterm neonates (1.5% vs. 6.6%, P = 0.03) and an increased mean gestational age (38.2±3.3 vs. 36.9±5.9, P = 0.016).
Tiwari et al.  reported significantly higher physical functioning in health related QOL (MD 10, 95% CI, 2.5–1.8) and a significant reduction of role limitation due to physical problems (MD 19, 95% CI, 1.5–37) and emotional problems (MD 28, 95% CI, 9.0–5.0). There was, however, also more bodily pain in this group (MD −1.3, 95% CI, −23–−2.2). Significantly fewer women in the IG reported postnatal depression at follow-up (RR 0.36, 95% CI, 0.15–0.88).
Curry et al.  found no statistically significant decrease of total stress scores between the two groups, although total stress scores of both intervention and control women significantly decreased (P<0.001) between follow-up periods.
The intervention by Zlotnick et al.  did not significantly reduce the likelihood of a major depressive episode or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). They found a trend towards decrease during pregnancy but not during postpartum.
Cripe et al.  found a trend towards improved QOL, safety and help seeking behaviors (church and police) in the IG, but no statistically significant differences between the two groups.
The following figure 2 gives illustrates the correlations between the type of intervention and the impact on the reduction of IPV.
PA = Paraprofessional. N = Nurse. IG = Intervention Group. CG = Control Group. MF = Multifaceted intervention. P = Physical. S = Sexual. E = Emotional. M.O. statistical significance = statistical significant results of measured primary outcome.
The results of our systematic review demonstrate that there are few RCTs evaluating interventions for IPV during the perinatal period. Moreover, the overall quality of the nine studies identified is limited and did not produce strong evidence that certain interventions are effective. This finding is also endorsed by Jahanfar et al. . The evidence of IPV interventions outside the context of pregnancy remains similarly insufficient and inconclusive 24,,–.
Nevertheless, five out of nine studies in our review reported a statistically significant decrease in some form of IPV (odds ratios from 0.47 to 0.92). The most promising results identified by this review are to be found in the home visitation programs and multifaceted counseling-interventions. The three studies ,, on home visitation programs all showed a statistically significant decrease in IPV victimization (and one in perpetration). However, although Olds et al.  noted a significant decrease in physical IPV for the nurse-visited women, this was not found for the paraprofessional-visited women. The authors attributed this finding to an increased emphasis among the nurses on partner violence, but it remains unclear if this was really the case. With regard to the secondary outcomes, Olds  reported significantly better mental health, fewer subsequent miscarriages and low birth weight newborns in the paraprofessional-visited but not in the nurse-visited women. The different impact of nurses and paraprofessionals raises questions about the mechanisms through which the interventions affected the outcomes.
It is interesting to note that out of six studies evaluating different types of supportive counseling, only two reported a statistically significant effect of the intervention on IPV. First, the high-quality study by Kiely et al.  found that their cognitive behavioral intervention significantly reduced recurrent episodes of IPV (except for sexual IPV). Second, Tiwari et al.  reported significantly less psychological and minor physical (except for sexual IPV) violence in the intervention group. Sexual partner violence seems to be a form of violence that is difficult to influence. The other four studies ,,, did not find a significant difference in IPV between the intervention and control groups. Concerning secondary outcomes, Kiely et al.  observed significantly fewer very preterm neonates and an increased mean gestational age in the intervention group. Tiwari et al.  reported significantly fewer women with postnatal depression and improved QOL in the intervention group.
None of the studies reported any evidence of a negative or harmful effect of interventions, although only one study  mentioned assessing potential harms caused by intervention.
The results should be interpreted with caution and within the light of serious methodological challenges. Researching violence is inherently associated with numerous ethical and safety issues, making it very difficult to produce strong evidence. We identified considerable variation in categorizing certain behavior as IPV, research settings, study populations, sample sizes, content of the intervention, and length of follow-up. Intrinsic to the difficulties associated with the study subject sample sizes are small, there is a considerable loss to follow-up, and it is impossible to blind respondents. Moreover, few studies adjusted their analysis for confounding factors (e.g. childhood abuse), which can create an oversimplified image of reality. However, it should be remembered that lack of statistically significant results does not necessarily imply clinical irrelevance. Some interventions might be effective but not have reached significance level due to methodological and/or ethical challenges.
It is striking that five out of the nine studies reported decreases in IPV after a certain point in time but that these decreases did not significantly differ between intervention and control groups. Apparently, with time (certain) wounds heal. However, other explanations can also be hypothesized.
First, as far as we know, in all the studies reviewed, identifying IPV was not part of routine perinatal care but an additional research-related activity (also known as the Hawthorne-effect) ,. Asking IPV-related questions to women in the control group, mostly in combination with handing out a referral card could have had a larger impact than assumed. McFarlane et al.  found that “simple assessment of abuse and offering referrals has the potential to interrupt and prevent recurrence of IPV”. In other words it is possible that the ‘intervention’ in the control group is more effective than anticipated and therefore no clear difference between the two groups is detected.
Second, it seems reasonable to question the legitimacy of using IPV as a main outcome measure. Given the complexity of intervening factors between identification and IPV reduction (with many not under the control of health care providers), interventions should not necessarily be expected to decrease IPV . Internal changes (mental health, QOL, …) are potentially more informative for evaluating the impact of an intervention for IPV. Significant changes in active or passive experiences of violence may not be observable for some time ,,,. At the time of measurement, respondents might simply not acknowledge the violence, or be ready to make changes or accept help. Some counseling interventions (developing safety plans, seeking help, …) might come too early and/or are not adapted to specific needs and therefore prove ineffective ,. In this review, we identified only one study  that included some measure of ‘readiness to change’ which might have contributed to the lack of significant results.
Furthermore, our systematic review yielded only one study  reporting both maternal victimization and perpetration behavior, in which there is the striking observation that the rate of perpetration acts in women was twice as high as the victimization acts in both intervention and control groups (at baseline). The intervention seemed to reduce mainly maternal perpetration behavior, but paternal victimization nor perpetration behavior was not directly measured. This finding adds to the debate on gender symmetry in the perpetration of violence and the discussion about over-disclosure by women and under-disclosure by men. Yet, pregnant women's use of violence is virtually ignored by most authors . Moreover, Hellmuth et al.  found that IPV perpetration during pregnancy and/or postpartum is associated with negative health outcomes. Therefore, measuring only subjection to violence as a measure of effectiveness of an intervention seems quite insufficient. More attention should be given to outcome measures reflecting the complex process of changing destructive interaction dynamics.
We are aware that this systematic review has several limitations. The choice of databases, inclusion criteria, risk of bias assessment, and interpretation of results all required the individual judgment of the authors. We took various steps to minimize bias at all stages of the review process, but a different review team may not fully agree with our assessment.
This systematic review indicates that strong evidence of effective interventions for IPV during the perinatal period is lacking. Nonetheless, home visitation programs and some multifaceted counseling interventions produced promising results. It is obvious that additional large-scale, high-quality research (with meta-analysis) is essential to tackle the remaining questions and provide further evidence about the effect of certain interventions. Future research should focus on several levels simultaneously (individual, relations, community, and society). Intervening in a single risk factor may be unsuccessful because other risk factors may persist as barriers to the desired change. Readiness to change, help seeking strategies and the complex mutuality of IPV should be taken into account. Serious thought should be given to appropriate outcome measures and to including process indicators in evaluating effectiveness.
We would like to thank prof. dr. Olivier Degomme for the methodological support, dr Simukai Shamu, Ines Keygnaert, dr. Kristien Michielsen and prof. dr. Kristien Roelens for their useful comments and prof. dr. Michael B. Drennan for the graphic support.
Conceived and designed the experiments: ASVP AV. Performed the experiments: ASVP AV. Analyzed the data: ASVP AV. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: ASVP AV HV. Wrote the paper: ASVP AV MT HV.
- 1. Daoud N, Urquia ML, O'Campo P, Heaman M, Janssen PA, et al. (2012) Prevalence of abuse and violence before, during, and after pregnancy in a national sample of Canadian women. Am J Public Health 102: 1893–1901 10.2105/AJPH.2012.300843 [doi].
- 2. Devries KM, Kishor S, Johnson H, Stockl H, Bacchus LJ, et al. (2010) Intimate partner violence during pregnancy: analysis of prevalence data from 19 countries. Reprod Health Matters 18: 158–170 S0968-8080(10)36533-5 [pii];10.1016/S0968-8080(10)36533-5 [doi].
- 3. Taillieu TL, Brownridge DA (2010) Violence against pregnant women: Prevalence, patterns, risk factors, theories, and directions for future research. Aggression and Violent Behavior 15: 14–35.
- 4. Krug EG, Mercy JA, Dahlberg LL, Zwi AB (2002) The world report on violence and health. Lancet 360: 1083–1088.
- 5. Hegarty KL, Gunn JM, O'Doherty LJ, Taft A, Chondros P, et al. (2010) Women's evaluation of abuse and violence care in general practice: a cluster randomised controlled trial (weave). Bmc Public Health 10.
- 6. Garcia-Moreno C, Heise L, Jansen HAFM, Ellsberg M, Watts C (2005) Public health - Violence against women. Science 310: 1282–1283.
- 7. Fisher J, de Mello MC, Patel V, Rahman A, Tran T, et al. (2012) Prevalence and determinants of common perinatal mental disorders in women in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 90: 139–149.
- 8. Kan ML, Feinberg ME (2010) Measurement and Correlates of Intimate Partner Violence Among Expectant First-Time Parents. Violence and Victims 25: 319–331.
- 9. Saltzman LE, Johnson CH, Gilbert BC, Goodwin MM (2003) Physical abuse around the time of pregnancy: an examination of prevalence and risk factors in 16 states. Matern Child Health J 7: 31–43.
- 10. Jasinski JL (2004) Pregnancy and domestic violence: a review of the literature. Trauma Violence Abuse 5: 47–64 10.1177/1524838003259322 [doi].
- 11. Charles P, Perreira KM (2007) Intimate partner violence during pregnancy and 1-year post-partum. Journal of Family Violence 22: 609–619.
- 12. Martin SL, Harris-Britt A, Li Y, Moracco KE, Kupper LL, et al. (2004) Changes in intimate partner violence during pregnancy. Journal of Family Violence 19: 201–210.
- 13. Roelens K, Verstraelen H, Van EK, Temmerman M (2008) Disclosure and health-seeking behaviour following intimate partner violence before and during pregnancy in Flanders, Belgium: a survey surveillance study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 137: 37–42 S0301-2115(07)00222-9 [pii];10.1016/j.ejogrb.2007.04.013 [doi].
- 14. Chambliss LR (2008) Intimate partner violence and its implication for pregnancy. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynecology 51: 385–397.
- 15. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S (2004) Domestic violence: prevalence in pregnant women and associations with physical and psychological health. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 113: 6–11.
- 16. Shamu S, Abrahams N, Temmerman M, Musekiwa A, Zarowsky C (2011) A Systematic Review of African Studies on Intimate Partner Violence against Pregnant Women: Prevalence and Risk Factors. Plos One 6.
- 17. Cripe SM, Sanchez SE, Sanchez E, Quintanilla BA, Alarcon CH, et al. (2010) Intimate Partner Violence During Pregnancy: A Pilot Intervention Program in Lima, Peru. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25: 2054–2076.
- 18. Rose L, Bhandari S, Marcantonio K, Bullock L, Sharps P (2010) Impact of Family and Personal History of Abused Pregnant Women on Their Coping With Current Intimate Partner Violence. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 9: 382–383.
- 19. Johnson JK, Haider F, Ellis K, Hay DM, Lindow SW (2003) The prevalence of domestic violence in pregnant women. Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 110: 272–275.
- 20. Taft AJ, Small R, Hegarty KL, Lumley J, Watson LF, et al. (2009) MOSAIC (MOthers' Advocates In the Community): protocol and sample description of a cluster randomised trial of mentor mother support to reduce intimate partner violence among pregnant or recent mothers. Bmc Public Health 9.
- 21. Campbell JC (2001) Abuse during pregnancy: a quintessential threat to maternal and child health - so when do we start to act? Canadian Medical Association Journal 164: 1578–1579.
- 22. Gazmararian JA, Lazorick S, Spitz AM, Ballard TJ, Saltzman LE, et al. (1996) Prevalence of violence against pregnant women. JAMA 275: 1915–1920.
- 23. Silverman JG, Decker MR, Reed E, Raj A (2006) Intimate partner violence victimization prior to and during pregnancy among women residing in 26 US states: Associations with maternal and neonatal health. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 195: 140–148.
- 24. Bailey BA (2010) Partner violence during pregnancy: prevalence, effects, screening, and management. Int J Womens Health 2: 183–197.
- 25. Rodrigues T, Rocha L, Barros H (2008) Physical abuse during pregnancy and preterm delivery. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 198.
- 26. Coker AL, Sanderson M, Dong B (2004) Partner violence during pregnancy and risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology 18: 260–269.
- 27. Mechanic MB, Weaver TL, Resick PA (2008) Mental health consequences of intimate partner abuse: a multidimensional assessment of four different forms of abuse. Violence Against Women 14: 634–654 14/6/634 [pii];10.1177/1077801208319283 [doi].
- 28. Dunn LL, Oths KS (2004) Prenatal predictors of intimate partner abuse. Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 33: 54–63.
- 29. Bacchus L, Mezey G, Bewley S (2004) Domestic violence: prevalence in pregnant women and associations with physical and psychological health. European Journal of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 113: 6–11.
- 30. McFarlane JM, Groff JY, O'Brien JA, Watson K (2006) Secondary prevention of intimate partner violence - A randomized controlled trial. Nursing Research 55: 52–61.
- 31. Nelson HD, Bougatsos C, Blazina I (2012) Screening Women for Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review to Update the US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Annals of Internal Medicine 156: 796–+.
- 32. O'Reilly R, Beale B, Gillies D (2010) Screening and intervention for domestic violence during pregnancy care: a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse 11: 190–201 1524838010378298 [pii];10.1177/1524838010378298 [doi].
- 33. Hegarty K, O'Doherty L, Taft A, Chondros P, Brown S, et al. (2013) Screening and counselling in the primary care setting for women who have experienced intimate partner violence (WEAVE): a cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet 382: 249–258 S0140-6736(13)60052-5 [pii];10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60052-5 [doi].
- 34. Spangaro JM, Zwi AB, Poulos RG, Man WY (2010) Who tells and what happens: disclosure and health service responses to screening for intimate partner violence. Health Soc Care Community 18: 671–680 HSC943 [pii];10.1111/j.1365-2524.2010.00943.x [doi].
- 35. O'Campo P, Kirst M, Tsamis C, Chambers C, Ahmad F (2011) Implementing successful intimate partner violence screening programs in health care settings: Evidence generated from a realist-informed systematic review. Social Science & Medicine 72: 855–866.
- 36. Higgings JPT ADe (2013) Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.1. (updated September 2008).
- 37. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 1006–1012.
- 38. Zlotnick C, Capezza NM, Parker D (2011) An interpersonally based intervention for low-income pregnant women with intimate partner violence: a pilot study. Archives of Womens Mental Health 14: 55–65.
- 39. Taft AJ, Small R, Hegarty KL, Watson LF, Gold L, et al. (2011) Mothers' AdvocateS In the Community (MOSAIC)-non-professional mentor support to reduce intimate partner violence and depression in mothers: a cluster randomised trial in primary care. Bmc Public Health 11.
- 40. Kiely M, El-Mohandes AAE, El-Khorazaty MN, Gantz MG (2010) An Integrated Intervention to Reduce Intimate Partner Violence in Pregnancy A Randomized Controlled Trial. Obstetrics and Gynecology 115: 273–283.
- 41. Bair-Merritt MH, Jennings JM, Chen RS, Burrell L, McFarlane E, et al. (2010) Reducing Maternal Intimate Partner Violence After the Birth of a Child A Randomized Controlled Trial of the Hawaii Healthy Start Home Visitation Program. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine 164: 16–23.
- 42. Curry MA, Durham L, Bullock L, Bloom T, Davis J (2006) Nurse case management for pregnant women experiencing or at risk for abuse. Jognn-Journal of Obstetric Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 35: 181–192.
- 43. Humphreys J, Tsoh JY, Kohn MA, Gerbert B (2011) Increasing Discussions of Intimate Partner Violence in Prenatal Care Using Video Doctor Plus Provider Cueing: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Womens Health Issues 21: 136–144.
- 44. Olds DL, Robinson J, Pettitt L, Luckey DW, Holmberg J, et al. (2004) Effects of home visits by paraprofessionals and by nurses: Age 4 follow-up results of a randomized trial. Pediatrics 114: 1560–1568.
- 45. Tiwari A, Leung WC, Leung TW, Humphreys J, Parker B, et al. (2005) A randomised controlled trial of empowerment training for Chinese abused pregnant women in Hong Kong. Bjog-An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 112: 1249–1256.
- 46. Jahanfar S, Janssen PA, Howard LM, Dowswell T (2013) Interventions for preventing or reducing domestic violence against pregnant women. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- 47. Ramsay J, Carter Y, Davidson L, Dunne D, Eldridge S, et al. (2009) Advocacy interventions to reduce or eliminate violence and promote the physical and psychosocial well-being of women who experience intimate partner abuse (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- 48. Wathen CN, MacMillan HL (2003) Interventions for violence against women - Scientific review. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 289: 589–600.
- 49. Ludermir AB, Lewis G, Valongueiro SA, de Araujo TVB, Araya R (2010) Violence against women by their intimate partner during pregnancy and postnatal depression: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 376: 903–910.
- 50. MacMillan HL, Wathen CN, Jamieson E, Boyle MH, Shannon HS, et al. (2009) Screening for Intimate Partner Violence in Health Care Settings A Randomized Trial. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association 302: 493–501.
- 51. Zink T, Elder N, Jacobson J, Klostermann B (2004) Medical management of intimate partner violence considering the stages of change: Precontemplation and contemplation. Annals of Family Medicine 2: 231–239.
- 52. Fanslow JL, Robinson EM (2010) Help-Seeking Behaviors and Reasons for Help Seeking Reported by a Representative Sample of Women Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in New Zealand. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 25: 929–951.
- 53. Hellmuth JC, Gordon KC, Stuart GL, Moore TM (2013) Risk factors for intimate partner violence during pregnancy and postpartum. Archives of Womens Mental Health 16: 19–27.