Assessing readiness to manage intimate partner violence 12 months after completion of an educational program in fracture clinics: a pretest–posttest study

Article Figures & Tables

Table 1:

Participant characteristics

Characteristic	No. (%) of participants^* n = 109
Demographic
Age, yr, mean ± SD	36.7 ± 10.9
Sex
Female	36 (33.0)
Male	73 (67.0)
Race or ethnicity
White	86 (78.9)
Black	1 (0.9)
South Asian	12 (11.0)
Middle Eastern	2 (1.8)
East Asian	6 (5.5)
Multiracial	2 (1.8)
Professional
Health care profession
Orthopedic surgeon	26 (23.9)
Physician/surgical assistant	5 (4.6)
Nurse	8 (7.3)
Orthopedic technician	7 (6.4)
Orthopedic surgery resident	45 (41.3)
Orthopedic surgery fellow	1 (0.9)
Student	1 (0.9)
Physiotherapist	5 (4.6)
Occupational therapist	1 (0.9)
Booking clerk	1 (0.9)
Research personnel	9 (8.3)
Time in practice, yr, median (IQR)	4 (2–12)
Time at current fracture clinic, yr, median (IQR)	3 (1.5–6)
No. of patients treated per year, median (IQR)	1500 (725–3000)
Previous IPV training
Time spent, h
0	50 (45.9)
1–5	52 (47.7)
6–15	7 (6.4)
Type of training^†
Watched a video	21 (19.3)
Attended a lecture or talk	50 (45.9)
Attended skills-based training workshop	7 (6.4)
Completed online training	7 (6.4)
Other	5 (4.6)
Setting of training
Medical or professional school	28 (25.7)
Residency or placement or internship	13 (11.9)
Workplace	14 (12.8)
Professional education	11 (10.1)
Other	6 (5.5)

Note: IPV = intimate partner violence, IQR = interquartile range, SD = standard deviation.
↵* Except where indicated otherwise.
↵† Participants could report more than 1 type or setting of previous IPV training, if applicable.

Table 2:

Change in scores on subscales of the Physician Readiness to Manage Intimate Partner Violence Survey from baseline to 12 months after training

Subscale	Timing of survey; score, mean ± SD^*		MD (95% CI)^†
Subscale	Baseline	12 mo	MD (95% CI)^†
Actual knowledge	26.59 ± 4.92	29.09 ± 4.66	2.50 (1.69 to 3.32)
Perceived preparation	2.60 ± 1.08	4.66 ± 1.15	2.06 (1.88 to 2.24)
Perceived knowledge	2.70 ± 1.12	4.84 ± 1.05	2.14 (1.96 to 2.31)
Practice issues	5.81 ± 6.46	11.94 ± 7.26	6.12 (4.97 to 7.27)
Opinion subscales
Preparation	3.73 ± 1.25	4.83 ± 0.90	1.10 (0.94 to 1.26)
Legal requirements	3.38 ± 1.52	4.94 ± 1.16	1.57 (1.36 to 1.78)
Workplace issues^‡	3.04 ± 0.95	4.24 ± 0.88	1.19 (1.04 to 1.35)
Self-efficacy	3.56 ± 0.46	4.12 ± 0.61	0.56 (0.46 to 0.67)
Alcohol and drugs	4.22 ± 0.57	4.34 ± 0.52	0.11 (0.02 to 0.21)
Victim understanding	4.97 ± 0.70	4.92 ± 0.70	−0.05 (−0.16 to 0.07)

Note: CI = confidence interval, IPV = intimate partner violence, MCID = minimally important clinical difference, MD = mean difference, SD = standard deviation.
↵* For each subscale, the potential range of scores and the estimated MCID (where MCID was estimated as half the SD for that subscale at baseline, (10) based on the 139 participants who responded to the survey at baseline (8)) were as follows: actual knowledge, potential range of scores 0 to 38, MCID 2.42; perceived preparation to manage IPV, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.55; perceived knowledge of important IPV issues, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.55; practice issues, potential range 0 to 58, MCID 3.06; preparation, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.59; legal requirements, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.77; workplace issues, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.45; self-efficacy, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.22; alcohol and drugs, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.28; and victim understanding, potential range 1 to 7, MCID 0.35.
↵† MD was based on multivariable linear regression model comparing baseline score with 12-month score.
↵‡ Data for the workplace issues domain are based on 108 responses (1 participant missed all questions that were part of the workplace issues domain).