Esther Choo1, Megan Ranney1, Terrie Wetle2, Kathleen Morrow3, Michael Mello1, Daniel Squires4, Chantal Tapé1, Aris Garro1, Caron Zlotnick3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, 55 Claverick St., 2 Floor, Providence, RI 02903, U.S. 2. Brown University School of Public Health, 121 S. Main St., Providence, RI 02912, U.S. 3. Brown University Department of Psychiatry & Human Behavior, 345 Blackstone Blvd, Providence, RI 02912, U.S. 4. Brown University Department of Behavioral and Social Sciences, 121 S. Main St., Providence, RI 02912, U.S.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Drug use and partner abuse often coexist among women presenting to the emergency department (ED). Technology offers one solution to the limited time and expertise available to address these problems. AIMS: The aims of this study were to explore womens' attitudes about use of computers for screening and intervening in drug use and partner abuse. METHODS: Seventeen adult women with recent histories of partner abuse and drug use were recruited from an urban ED to participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. A coding classification scheme was developed and applied to the transcripts by two independent coders. The research team collaboratively decided upon a thematic framework and selected illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Most participants used computers and/or mobile phones frequently and reported high self-efficacy with them. Women described emotional difficulty and shame around partner abuse experiences and drug use; however, they felt that reporting drug use and partner abuse was easier and safer through a computer than face-to-face with a person, and that advice from a computer about drug use or partner abuse was acceptable and accessible. Some had very positive experiences completing screening assessments. However, participants were skeptical of a computer's ability to give empathy, emotional support or meaningful feedback. The ED was felt to be an appropriate venue for such programs, as long as they were private and did not supersede clinical care. CONCLUSIONS: Women with partner abuse and drug use histories were receptive to computerized screening and advice, while still expressing a need for the empathy and compassion of a human interaction within an intervention.
BACKGROUND: Drug use and partner abuse often coexist among women presenting to the emergency department (ED). Technology offers one solution to the limited time and expertise available to address these problems. AIMS: The aims of this study were to explore womens' attitudes about use of computers for screening and intervening in drug use and partner abuse. METHODS: Seventeen adult women with recent histories of partner abuse and drug use were recruited from an urban ED to participate in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. A coding classification scheme was developed and applied to the transcripts by two independent coders. The research team collaboratively decided upon a thematic framework and selected illustrative quotes. RESULTS: Most participants used computers and/or mobile phones frequently and reported high self-efficacy with them. Women described emotional difficulty and shame around partner abuse experiences and drug use; however, they felt that reporting drug use and partner abuse was easier and safer through a computer than face-to-face with a person, and that advice from a computer about drug use or partner abuse was acceptable and accessible. Some had very positive experiences completing screening assessments. However, participants were skeptical of a computer's ability to give empathy, emotional support or meaningful feedback. The ED was felt to be an appropriate venue for such programs, as long as they were private and did not supersede clinical care. CONCLUSIONS:Women with partner abuse and drug use histories were receptive to computerized screening and advice, while still expressing a need for the empathy and compassion of a human interaction within an intervention.
Authors: Karin V Rhodes; Richard M Frankel; Naomi Levinthal; Elizabeth Prenoveau; Jeannine Bailey; Wendy Levinson Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2007-11-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Esther K Choo; Caron Zlotnick; David R Strong; Daniel D Squires; Chantal Tapé; Michael J Mello Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Brian J Biroscak; Michael V Pantalon; James D Dziura; Denise P Hersey; Federico E Vaca Journal: Subst Abus Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Carmen Verhoeks; Doreth Teunissen; Anke van der Stelt-Steenbergen; Antoine Lagro-Janssen Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2017-08-02 Impact factor: 2.681