OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of an advocacy intervention on the use of safety-promoting behaviors in community-dwelling abused Chinese women as compared to a control condition of usual care. DESIGN: This efficacy trial used a randomized controlled, parallel group design. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 200 Chinese women in a community setting who screened positive for intimate partner violence using the Chinese version of the Abuse Assessment Screen were randomized to receive either an advocacy intervention (intervention group, n=100) or usual community care (control group, n=100). The outcome measured was the change in the self-reported safety-promoting behaviors as measured by the Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist over three time-points (baseline, 3-month follow-up and 9-month follow-up). Participants and assessors were blinded to the study hypothesis. Assessors were further blinded to the group membership of the participants. RESULTS: The Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist scores in the intervention group increased from the baseline on average by 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92-6.39) at 3-month and 6.65 (95% CI, 5.90-7.39) at 9-month follow-ups, while the scores in the control group also increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.37) at 3-month and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.15-2.43) at 9-month follow-ups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the between-group differences in scores were significant at 3-month and 9-month follow-ups (p=0.04). The intervention group increased the scores by 3.61 (95% CI, 2.61-4.61, p<0.001) more than the control group at 3-month and by 4.53 (95% CI, 3.53-5.53, p<0.001) at 9-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: An advocacy intervention is efficacious in increasing the use of safety-promoting behaviors as compared to usual community care in community-dwelling abused Chinese women.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of an advocacy intervention on the use of safety-promoting behaviors in community-dwelling abused Chinese women as compared to a control condition of usual care. DESIGN: This efficacy trial used a randomized controlled, parallel group design. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 200 Chinese women in a community setting who screened positive for intimate partner violence using the Chinese version of the Abuse Assessment Screen were randomized to receive either an advocacy intervention (intervention group, n=100) or usual community care (control group, n=100). The outcome measured was the change in the self-reported safety-promoting behaviors as measured by the Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist over three time-points (baseline, 3-month follow-up and 9-month follow-up). Participants and assessors were blinded to the study hypothesis. Assessors were further blinded to the group membership of the participants. RESULTS: The Safety-promoting Behavior Checklist scores in the intervention group increased from the baseline on average by 5.65 (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92-6.39) at 3-month and 6.65 (95% CI, 5.90-7.39) at 9-month follow-ups, while the scores in the control group also increased by 1.71 (95% CI, 1.06-2.37) at 3-month and 1.79 (95% CI, 1.15-2.43) at 9-month follow-ups. After adjusting for baseline differences, the between-group differences in scores were significant at 3-month and 9-month follow-ups (p=0.04). The intervention group increased the scores by 3.61 (95% CI, 2.61-4.61, p<0.001) more than the control group at 3-month and by 4.53 (95% CI, 3.53-5.53, p<0.001) at 9-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: An advocacy intervention is efficacious in increasing the use of safety-promoting behaviors as compared to usual community care in community-dwelling abused Chinese women.