PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Anuradha Paranjape

Publications and source records attributed to Anuradha Paranjape.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

STaT: a three-question screen for intimate partner violence.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a simple, sensitive screening tool for lifetime intimate partner violence (IPV) in women. METHODS: In the emergency department (ED) of an urban teaching hospital, 75 English-speaking women between 18 and 64 years old were tested. The sensitivity and specificity of 43 dichotomous response-option, IPV screening questions were compared. The reference standard was lifetime IPV, determined by a semistructured interview, using preset criteria of specific violence acts or emotional control or both by an intimate partner. Questions with high sensitivity (>70%) were tested together against the reference standard. Answering yes to any question scored 1 point. Content area and the area under receiver-operator curve (AUROC) of the screening questions determined the final tool. RESULTS: Sixty-three percent of women reported lifetime IPV. Eight of the 43 screening questions had a sensitivity of >70%. After testing possible combinations, the final three-question screen, STaT had the highest AUROC. The STaT questions are: "Have you ever been in a relationship where your partner has pushed or Slapped you?" "Have you ever been in a relationship where your partner Threatened you with violence?" and "Have you ever been in a relationship where your partner has thrown, broken or punched Things?" The sensitivity (95% confidence intervals [95% CI]) of STaT for lifetime IPV is 96% (90%, 100%), 89% (81%, 98%), and 64% (50%, 78%) for a score of >/=1, >/=2, and 3, respectively. The corresponding specificity is 75% (59%-91%), 100%, and 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Three simple questions when used together can effectively identify lifetime IPV and will aid clinicians' efforts to identify abuse in women.

Adult↗

Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings.

Feedback and reflection are two basic teaching methods used in clinical settings. In this article, the authors explore the distinctions between, and the potential impact of, feedback and reflection in clinical teaching. Feedback is the heart of medical education; different teaching encounters call for different types of feedback. Although most clinicians are familiar with the principles of giving feedback, many clinicians probably do not recognize the many opportunities presented to them for using feedback as a teaching tool. Reflection in medicine-the consideration of the larger context, the meaning, and the implications of an experience and action-allows the assimilation and reordering of concepts, skills, knowledge, and values into pre-existing knowledge structures. When used well, reflection will promote the growth of the individual. While feedback is not used often enough, reflection is probably used even less.

Clinical Medicine↗